Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS [SUSPENSION OF BILLS PARTLY CONSIDERED BY A COMMITTEE]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That if the Committee on any Private Bill, or Group of such Bills, have reported or shall report their opinion to the House that the consideration of any Bill or Bills already partly considered should not be proceeded with in the present Session, all further proceedings upon such Bills shall be suspended during the present Session.
With the permission of the House I should like to move this and the succeeding Motion together.
Hon. Members will have seen the two special Reports from the Committee on this group of four Water Bills. The Committee have reported that they have been unable after twenty-six days to complete their consideration of these competing Bills, and the first Motion is to suspend further proceedings on the Bills to the next Session.
The second Motion enables the promoters of the four Water Bills to resume proceedings in the next Session of Parliament at the point which they have reached today. The delays in the consideration of these Bills have not arisen due to any fault of the promoters, and the House may, therefore, feel that exceptions should be made from the general rule that the business of the House, whether public or private, should be contained within the framework of the Session. The promoters will thereby be saved further delay and expense.
I commend the Motions to the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this not an unusual proceeding? Under which Standing Order does the Chairman of Ways and Means move this Motion?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is quite a usual proceeding when Bills are held up and cannot be passed in the Session in which they are introduced. By this means they are carried over. It is exceptional to some extent, but it is quite customary to do it. I hope the House will pass these Motions, because that will save a lot of time and money for the promoters. It is no fault of theirs that delays have arisen.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That if the Committee on any Private Bill, or Group of such Bills, have reported or shall report their opinion to the House that the consideration of any Bill or Bills already partly considered should not be proceeded with in the present Session, all further proceedings upon such Bills shall be suspended during the present Session.

SOUTH BUCKS AND OXFORDSHIRE WATER BILL, BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL, READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &C, BILL AND MID-WESSEX WATER BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the South Bucks and Oxfordshire Water Bill, the Bucks Water Board Bill, the Reading and Berkshire Water &amp;c. Bill and the Mid-Wessex Water Bill shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the same, if they think fit, in the next Session.

Ordered,
That the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall, if the Bill has been suspended on the Report of a Committee, give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session; provided that all Fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That not later than Five o'clock on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House.

Ordered.
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a Declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session.


Ordered,
That the Bills when laid upon the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed; and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read and committed.

Ordered,
That any Petitions presented in the present Session against the Bills, and which stood referred to the Committee on the Bills, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bills in the next Session.

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bills, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bills, Standing Order 127 (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) relating to Private Business, shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That any Instruction in the present Session to the Committee on the Bills be an Instruction to the Committee on the same Bills in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no new fees be charged in respect of any stage of the Bill upon which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHEERNESS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Thames Valley (Flood Barrier)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in the preparation of a report on the practicability, design and estimate, cost of constructing a movable flood barrier for the purpose of preventing flooding in the Thames Valley.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The amount of work involved on this proposal has exceeded expectations and my right hon. Friend has not yet received the report of the consulting engineers. They are, however, fully aware of the importance of completing their tests and reporting as soon as possible.

Mr. Dodds: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that we were promised a report by the end of 1957? In view of the disastrous floods in 1953, the fact that they may recur, and the fact that the Waverley Committee's Report suggested that there should be a barrier near Dartford and many people feel that there is not on the part of the Ministry the sense of urgency that this important matter demands, will the hon. Gentleman give a more definite assurance about the time when we can expect the report?

Mr. Bevins: The position is that the two firms of consulting engineers wish to carry out further tests before they decide the best method of operating a barrier. I cannot say when the report will be ready but when it is received I assure the hon. Member that it will be studied with urgency by my right hon. Friend.

Industrial Areas (Trees and Shrubs)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) if he will initiate a campaign in all industrial areas in England and Wales to clean and brighten the towns and cities by the planting of trees, shrubs, plants and turf, and appeal for the united co-operation of all organisations, employers and others in each area;
(2) if he is aware of the two-year campaign being carried out in the North-West for cleaning and beautifying the industrial areas by planting trees, shrubs, plants and turf; what assistance is being given by his Department; and with what results;
(3) if he will give the results of the general circular his Department sent out


to local authorities asking them to plant more trees and shrubs.

Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say there is evidence that local authorities generally are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of trees to the amenities of both town and country, and I have no doubt that the circular played its part in stimulating interest.
My right hon. Friend is aware of the fine work being done by a number of local authorities, in the north-west and elsewhere, in striving to make industrial areas more beautiful. He hopes that more authorities will do likewise, and that, besides planting on their own land, they will encourage planting on private land of all kinds. My right hon. Friend expects to publish in the autumn an illustrated book suggesting ways in which the appearance of towns can be improved by tree planting, and advising on the choice of species.

Mr. Smith: While appreciating that sympathetic reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary will consult his right hon. Friend with a view to asking him to consider the advisability of the Ministry taking the initiative to a greater extent than it has done in the past, in order to stimulate interest in this matter and give greater encouragement to local authorities?

Mr. Bevins: I am not sure in what way my right hon. Friend can take the initiative over and above what he has done already. If the hon. Member has any suggestions, we should be glad to consider them.

Sir L. Ropner: In view of the highly unsuitable choices that are often made, may I ask from what source local authorities can obtain advice about the most appropriate species of trees to grow?

Mr. Bevins: Many local authorities have their own parks superintendents. We have experts in the Ministry whose services are always available to the smaller local authorities.

Land, Holditch (Road)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in relation to

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council's appeal, reference 1436/40620/70L.2(d) 11741, against Staffordshire County Council's proviso to planning consent for the use of land at Holditch, Chesterton, that a trunk road should be included in the plan, if he will consult with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation about his present proposal that the trunk road should follow the line of the present Liverpool Road and Talke Road, Chesterton; and, in the light of these consultations, if he will reconsider whether it is necessary or desirable to include a road in the Holditch plan.

Mr. Bevins: I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation no longer proposes to construct a trunk road along the line cutting through the Holditch Industrial Estate, but the Staffordshire County Council, which is the local planning authority for the area, considers that there is a need for some kind of road here. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend see any reason to dissent from this view, which was upheld when dismissing the appeal on 9th May.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the original plan the road included in the Holditch plan was the trunk road but that in the meantime the Minister of Transport has changed his scheme for a trunk road? Why is it necessary, therefore, to include the road in the plan? Does the hon. Gentleman know of anybody in this area who wants the road?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. It is the view of Staffordshire County Council that a road is necessary through the Holditch Industrial Estate as well as the other thoroughfare to which the hon. Member has referred.

Stafford North Local Valuation Court

Mr. C. Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many requests for the postponement of a hearing under the Local Government Act, 1948, have been refused by the Stafford North Local Valuation Court each year since 1948.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I regret that this information is not available. But in amplification of previous Answers and correspondence I can assure the hon. Member that applications made in good time and with sufficient reason given are not refused.

Mr. Howell: Does not the Minister agree that, where the Act specifically lays down that an appellant can appeal to a lands tribunal only if he or his representative attends the court, there is a moral obligation on the court to permit the case to be postponed on a written application from the appellant sent several days previously? Alternatively; would not he agree that it is an injustice to a workman to deny him the right of postponement because he or his representative cannot attend, and that it is an injustice for the court to give a decision in those circumstances?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot agree that proceedings of this kind are unfair and unjust. One must bear in mind that the members of the local valuation courts are themselves serving unpaid, and in the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind a request for a postponement was received two days before the proposed date of the hearing, with no explanation given. In the circumstances the court, in the exercise of its discretion, decided that it would not grant deferment.

Mr. Howell: On a point of order. In view of the statement just made by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Local Government in London (Royal Commission)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will now indicate when the Royal Commission on Local Government in London will be issuing its report.

Mr. H. Brooke: It is too early to say when the Royal Commission will report.

Water Undertaking, Exmouth (Petition)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is yet in a position to reply to the petition sent to him by the hon. Member for the Honiton Division of Devon, signed by nearly 5,000 residents of Exmouth, objecting to the proposal to take over the Exmouth Urban District Council's Water Undertaking and requesting that the Minister should not take any compulsory action.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is considering this Petition, which was received in the Department only a few days ago, and he will reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Mathew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he urge on his right hon. Friend the examination of this matter with the utmost sympathy, bearing in mind the fact that this is an extremely efficient undertaking, which is run very economically, and that literally thousands of local ratepayers regard the proposal as a forerunner of nationalisation and, eventually, of higher water rates?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has all that multiplicity of considerations well in mind, and I hope my hon. Friend will be patient and await the reply.

Biddulph Urban District (Grants)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what grants have been made by his Departments since 1945 to the Biddulph Urban District Council, Staffordshire; and for what purposes these grants were made.

Mr. Bevins: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the amount of time that elapses between the request by the local authority for a grant, its submission of plans, and the award of the grant to the authority?

Mr. Bevins: It varies from case to case. I am not sure what type of grant the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if the suggestion is that there have been delays in respect of this local authority, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Year
Compensation for loss of rates on extinguishment of tithe rent charge
Subsidies under the Local Government Acts 1929 and 1946
Housing Subsidies
Evacuation





£
£
£
£


1945–46
…
…
17
6,773
3,504
35


1946–47
…
…
15
6,892
3,903
29


1947–48
…
…
16
7,011
4,681
—


1948–49
…
…
16
—
5,450
4


1949–50
…
…
15
—
6,868
—


1950–51
…
…
15
—
7,763
—


1951–52
…
…
15
—
8,296
—


1952–53
…
…
15
—
10,394
—


1953–54
…
…
13
—
16,809
—


1954–55
…
…
14
—
27,899
—


1955–56
…
…
14
—
29,786
—


1956–57
…
…
13
—
30,731
—.


1957–58
…
…
13
—
29,445
—





191
20,676
185,529
68


Total: £206,000 approximately.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

House Purchase (Local Authority Advances)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he is proposing to take to enable local authorities to advance 100 per cent. of the purchase price to suitable applicants for loans for house purchase.

Mr. H. Brooke: While I wish local authorities to make full use of their powers to lend for house purchase, these could only be extended by legislation. I will keep in mind the suggestion in the hon. Member's Question.

Mrs. Butler: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that if he could take some action quickly it would greatly assist families who are being evicted under the Rent Act and are trying to help themselves by buying houses but who cannot get together the 10 per cent. deposit in the short time available?

Mr. Brooke: This suggestion has been made to me from a number of quarters. To prove that I have not a closed mind

Following are the figures:

Grants paid to the Biddulph Urban District Council in respect of purposes for which the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now responsible, for each of the years from 1945–46 to 1957–58:

on the subject, I would point out that I raised no objection to a provision of that very character in the Wallasey Corporation Bill which has been before Parliament this Session.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities of this sort for advances of 100 per cent. to house purchasers would be welcomed on this side of the House as well, at any rate in respect of new houses?

Mr. Brooke: I will take note of that.

Prefabricated Houses (Public Open Space)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he proposes to introduce legislation to permit local authorities to retain prefabricated houses on public open space for the temporary housing of the homeless.

Mr. H. Brooke: As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 24th June, I do not think that such action is needed. In general we want more public open space, not less.

Mrs. Butler: Since the Minister's estimate of the number of homeless families, certainly in Wood Green, differs from that of the local authority, in that he thinks that the problem will he negligible after October and the local authority thinks that a great many families will be involved, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at this matter again in six months' time when the position will be clearer, and consider whether action on these lines can be taken then?

Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking. In the case which the hon. Lady has in mind, Wood Green Borough Council sought Ministerial approval to keep 56 houses on public open spaces until August, 1960, and that was granted. I really do not believe that they ought to stay there longer.

Rent Act, 1957

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress is being made in the objectives of the Rent Act; what evidence he has of unreasonable demands by landlords from tenants of decontrolled houses; and what effect he estimates evictions under the Act will have on the housing problems of local authorities.

Mr. H. Brooke: The Rent Act is already enabling landlords to put and keep their property in better repair, and is encouraging them to re-let rather than to sell. The decontrol provisions are working, and cases of genuine hardship should be met by the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I anticipate no serious difficulties for local authorities.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what has been the effect of his warning to unscrupulous landlords who are trying to make tenants who have short leases; of neglected property take on all obligations except for major structural operations? What information has the right hon. Gentleman that the evictions after October, as a result of the Rent Act, will not create major problems for some local authorities at a time when the housing programme is being cut down materially?

Mr. Brooke: Since the warning to which the hon. Member refers, I have introduced the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill and that Bill, in the course of its passage through Parliament, was amended, I should have thought, in the sense which the hon. Member would approve. Nobody can tell for certain the number of people who may be homeless after October, but I know that the London County Council first made an estimate of 30,000 and then reduced it to 3,000. I think that it will be lower than that.

Lake District National Park (Private Houses)

Mr. Whitelaw: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what powers have been given to the Lake District Planning Board over the erection of private dwelling-houses in the Lake District National Park;
(2) on what grounds he decided not to allow the appeals made by Dr. Newall and Mr. Horn against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of two bungalows near Lake Ullswater.

Mr. Bevins: The Lake District Planning Board has the powers of a local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to control development including the erection of private houses. The bungalows in question were to be erected on conspicuous sites in an area of great natural beauty in a National Park. My right hon. Friend agreed with the local planning authority that bungalows here would damage the landscape.

Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst it is widely appreciated that the Lake District Planning Board serves the best interests of the Lake District, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that in this case the Board overruled the authority concerned and flatly contradicted one of its own previous decisions? Is he also aware that the considerations which he has mentioned may have applied to two private individuals who were trying to erect bungalows designed to fit in with the scenic beauty of the district, whereas the same consideration did not apply to a public body which was allowed to erect


cottages of a very ordinary design indeed in exactly the same area?

Mr. Bevins: It is true that the Lake District Planning Board delegates some of its planning functions to the rural district council, but it is perfectly entitled to overrule that council if it thinks that the latter is wrong. It thought so on this occasion and so did my right hon. Friend. As for the comparison with the Outward Bound buildings, I have looked at these two cases and I am perfectly convinced that, owing to the shielding of the Outward Bound buildings by trees and the difference in the contour, they are not offensive to amenity whereas the bungalows on the edge of the lake would have been so.

Flats, Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date his sanction was sought by the Cardiff City Council for the erection of twelve three-storey blocks of flats at Ball Road, Llanrumney, Cardiff; and on what date his assent was given.

Mr. H. Brooke: On the planning aspects of this scheme my assent was not required; Cardiff City Council is itself the planning authority. As regards the Housing Acts, the Council submitted the scheme to me on 8th May, 1958, and my approval was given on 25th June.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the impression under which a number of local inhabitants are labouring that this was intended as an open space, can the Minister confirm that in fact it was not so intended? Secondly, can he tell us whether any limitation is put on the type of housing development in the area?

Mr. Brooke: To the best of my knowledge, this land was not allocated for open space, nor am I aware of any limitation being put on the form of housing development.

Decontrolled Houses (Repair)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he

is taking to check the growing practice of landlords in Newcastle-upon-Tyne threatening eviction proceedings against tenants who reduce their rent when landlords' undertakings to carry out repairs remain unfulfilled.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am not aware of this practice. But I welcome this opportunity of re-emphasising that the security of a controlled tenant is in no way affected by his exercising his rights under the disrepair procedure of the Rent Act.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's clear statement to this effect, is he nevertheless aware that many tenants refuse to believe that this is the case, and are paying very much higher rents, as they have been, in effect, almost terrorised by private landlords in many cases? Will the right hon. Gentleman not cease to make these public statements about the true position of the tenant, both on the radio and in other ways, to try to ensure that tenants appreciate their rights?

Mr. Brooke: I have from the beginning done all in my power to let tenants know what are their rights, and one and a quarter million copies of the 6d. booklet, "The Rent Act and You", have been sold. Unfortunately many people may have been misled by false propaganda about the Rent Act.

Dame Irene Ward: Arising out of that answer, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that I have sent him a specific case of a landlord, who fortunately is not a constituent of mine but who has property in my constituency at North Shields, who has deliberately terrorised the tenant? The details of the case have been sent to my right hon. Friend. Does not he consider that it is ill-advised merely to dismiss these allegations?

Mr. Brooke: One thing I have learned is that it is unwise for any of us to express a view about a case on the spur of the moment without knowing both sides of it.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, to my own knowledge, far too many landlords are still refusing to accept the holding back of rent, which the tenant is entitled to do under the Act, and will he consider bringing forward legislation to make such a


refusal an offence, even when there is no entry in the rent book?

Mr. Brooke: In the kind of case to which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring, paragraph (8) of the First Schedule to the Rent Act enables the tenant to go to the local authority and seek a certificate stating definitely whether or not the undertaking has been carried out.

Mr. Mitchison: That is not the point.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to enable tenants to enforce proper standards of repair against their landlord when the property has become decontrolled under the provisions of the 1957 Act.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir. The repairing obligations of landlord and tenant must be a matter for agreement when the terms of a new tenancy are settled.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many people have taken on new tenancies quite forgetting the fact that this puts them completely in the power of the landlord? Will he consider the very serious plight of many tenants of bad property who are now unable to enforce any decent standard of repair against the landlord? Will he seek powers to enforce decent standards upon the landlords?

Mr. Brooke: I am very sorry if any tenants have entered into unwise agreements without taking professional advice beforehand, as they have been advised repeatedly to do.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the Minister aware that this is a natural consequence of his own Act, and will he, therefore, take measures to protect tenants against these consequences?

Mr. Brooke: The Opposition cannot distract attention from the shortcomings of their own housing policy by continuing to slight the Government, who have had the courage to tackle rent restriction.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the evidence from both sides of the House that landlords are taking advantage of tenants, may I ask the Minister whether

he will recognise his obligation, as the Minister who recommended this legislation to the House, to protect the tenants against them?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I think we must all have regard to the protection that is available to us under the law. I am extremely sorry when individuals, whether in this matter or any other, fail to inform themselves adequately.

Mr. Gower: While it may be true that considerable repairs are needed, is not there evidence from all over the country to show that in recent months the scale of repairs to houses has been far greater than for very many years?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. That is one of the excellent effects of the Rent Act which the Opposition have sought to prevent.

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. May I join in the debate tomorrow night?

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to see how we get on, but I think the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) may want to ask for legislation.

Atherstone (Housing Programme)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow the construction of 22 houses at Warton in the Atherstone rural district in the County of Warwick;
(2) what representations he has received from the Atherstone Rural District Council concerning the construction of 22 houses at Warton; and whether he will state his reply.

Mr. H. Brooke: I have already agreed that the council should put 67 dwellings into tender this year. The council has asked for this to be increased to 89 because it claims that it was delayed by my Department in approving the layout for its Warton site. It is not in dispute that there were difficulties about the layout proposed by the council, which took time to resolve: but this particular problem


had no bearing on the size of programme I could authorise the council to put in hand this year. I shall be prepared later in the year to review its request for an increase.

Mr. Moss: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's approval of the houses, may I ask whether he is aware that the Atherstone Rural District Council has completed only 12 houses this year, as compared with an annual average of 122 since 1951–52? Is he aware that since 1956 preparations have been made at Warton to build houses to remove slum dwellings? Would not it therefore be a good idea if the council were allowed to get on with those as well?

Mr. Brooke: What I have done is to approve a programme of 67 houses this year, which should cover the immediate slum clearance commitments, and I have told the hon. Member that I am prepared to look at the matter again later in the year.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Kamiti Prison Hospital (Detainees)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many detainees in Kamiti Quarry Hospital, Kenya, are suffering from tuberculosis and leprosy; how long have they been in the hospital; and what treatment they are receiving.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I assume the hon. Lady is referring to Kamiti Prison Hospital, which is the central prison hospital to which all convicts and detainees suffering from infectious tuberculosis are transferred. At 15th July there were 30 detainees suffering from tuberculosis and four suffering from leprosy in the hospital. The maximum period for which any tubercular patient has been under treatment there is two years; the lepers are new arrivals. As the medical treatment is varied and technical I will, with permission, circulate details of this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that information confirms that in a letter which I have received from one of the detainees in the hospital, which also complained that the treatment which the detainees are receiving is not the same

or as good as that given in the civil native hospitals, and that it also alleges that medicine is refused unless the men confess, and that there is no diet for the sick different from that of the healthy? Will he examine those points carefully?

Mr. Profumo: I think that the hon. Lady knows that if she sends my right hon. Friend or me any information of this sort, we will always examine it very carefully. I hope that she will resort to that instead of making what appear to be wild allegations in the House. I assure her that when she reads my Answer, she will see that the treatment afforded is of the most up-to-date kind.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, however undesirable he may think it, this sort of Question becomes inevitable in view of the recent discussion which we had in the House on whether Members' correspondence is privileged or not?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Lady likes to speak to me, that will give me even greater pleasure.

Following is the information:

Patients receive the following treatment:

(i) Tuberculosis:

(a) Chemotherapy (isonicotinic acid hydrazide and para-amino-salicylic acid).
(b) Pneumo-peritoneum
(c) Postural treatment to assist the closure of large lung cavities
(d) Symptomatic treatment.
(e) Extra diet

(All T.B. cases are X-rayed every six months.)

(ii) Leprosy:
Avlosulphon tablets combined with symptomatic treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Shoe Repairs (Prison Labour)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what petitions have been received by the Government of the Seychelles from shoe makers against the use of prison labour for the making and repair of shoes; and what action has been taken.

Mr. Profumo: The Governor received a petition dated 19th February, 1958, alleging that the Prisons Department was undertaking shoe repairs for the public,


using prison labour and in direct competition with commercial shoemakers. It was found that six private repairs had been undertaken, in order to extend the training in cobbling given to the prisoners by the police cobbler. On 25th February the Superintendent of Prisons was directed to limit work to the repair of police and Prison Department boots and the shoes of nursing sisters; the petitioners were informed of this decision.

Mr. Swingler: As there are plenty of opportunities in the Seychelles for constructive labour by prisoners which will not damage the interests of craftsmen or traders, will the Under-Secretary ensure that there is strict adherence to the rule that prison labour should not be exploited to the detriment of civilians?

Mr. Profumo: So long as the international regulations are being observed, those are matters which are better left to the local authorities.

Lepers, Curieuse (Rehabilitation and Resettlement)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Government of the Seychelles for the rehabilitation and resettlement of persons discharged from the leper settlement of Curieuse; and what financial provision is made for them during the period of resettlement.

Mr. Profumo: The Director of Medical Services makes sure that people discharged from the leper settlement have a suitable home to go to and someone to look after them. The Welfare Department finds work for them if asked. Financial help in the form of poor relief is given if necessary.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Under-Secretary make some inquiries about the present financial provision? Is he aware that many of these people fall into a state of destitution after leaving the settlement? As they should clearly be given special care and welfare facilities, will he inquire what measures are being taken by the Government of the Seychelles to provide some form of regular financial assistance?

Mr. Profumo: My Answer was designed to let the hon. Member know that I am perfectly satisfied that the Government of the Seychelles are taking these masters into consideration and helping all those who need help.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Diamond Smuggling

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals were made on the problems of diamond smuggling in discussions between President Tubman and Sir Maurice Dorman, Governor of Sierra Leone, during the Governor's official visit to Liberia.

Mr. Profumo: I understand that the Governor took the opportunity during his visit of discussing the matter informally with President Tubman who expressed his sympathy for the Sierra Leone Government in their difficulties and promised his support within the limits of what was practical.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Under-Secretary say whether these conversations will be embodied in a document or White Paper for consideration by the House? In the meantime, what steps are being taken to stop this practice?

Mr. Profumo: I could not give that undertaking without further consideration

Palm Oil Industry

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals for a national policy are being considered by the Sierra Leone Marketing Board to stimulate the palm oil industry, in view of the conclusion in its annual report for 1957 that the palm oil industry is of fundamental importance to the economy of Sierra Leone.

Mr. Profumo: The Marketing Board's Report urged the adoption by the Government and others concerned of a policy of planting high yield varieties of oil palms; and I understand that the Sierra Leone Government have been actively investigating means of stimulating production of palm kernels, as well as of other agricultural products.

Mr. Edwards: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, but does not he agree that there is great scope in the palm oil industry for the possible development of the co-operative principle? Does not he further agree that a scheme similar to the one operating in Nigeria, where seedlings are circulated at very cheap rates, and where there is a high degree of


training, might also be considered for the palm oil industry of Sierra Leone?

Mr. Profumo: I should like to look into that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD

Constitution (Discussions)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions were reached in his official discussions with the Governor of Trinidad regarding constitutional changes for that territory.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Discussions have not yet taken place.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the last week before the Recess? As these discussions are contemplated, in view of the able administration of the islands by Dr. Eric Williams and the fact that Trinidad is to be the site of the Federal capital, will he do his utmost to enable full self-government in Trinidad to be realised?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Work at the Colonial Office does not stop merely because the House of Commons rises.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN ADEN PROTECTORATE

Discussions

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions have been reached in the official discussions with the four rulers of Western Aden Protectorates regarding the establishment of a federation of these territories; and what proposals have been made for increasing the provision of British defence forces.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I explained the result of my discussion with the Rulers from the Western Aden Protectorate in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 17th July. The Answer to the second part of the question is that it is not in the public interest to disclose what scales of British forces may be required in the Aden Protectorate or elsewhere from time to time.

Mr. Brockway: In these discussions, will the right hon. Gentleman be careful not to establish an artificial structure which does not have the support of the people of the Protectorates?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That will certainly not be an accurate description of the proposed federation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Crimes of Violence (Compensation)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will extend the Recovery of Compensation for Malicious Damage Act, introduced by Greek members and passed by the Cyprus Legislative Council in 1931, to cover compensation for crimes of violence in Cyprus.

Mr. Profumo: The Governor is considering whether the amendment of this legislation would help in present circumstances.

Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might help to check racial violence if, when damage was done to the property of one of these communities and the culprits could not be found, the other community had to pay just compensation?

Mr. Profumo: Those are the sort of things which the Governor is taking into consideration, but my hon. Friend should bear in mind that this violence is often caused by people coming from another district.

Arrested Persons (Bail)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many offenders arrested in Cyprus under the Emergency Regulations, since January of this year, have been granted bail.

Mr. Profumo: One hundred and twenty-eight.

Mrs. Castle: How many of those arrested were in cases involving offences which could bring the death penalty? Is it a fact that a Turkish police sergeant carrying a primed bomb in his car, a case which carries the death penalty under the Emergency Regulations, was granted bail, jumped his bail and escaped to Turkey? Is this the only case of its kind? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a


widespread belief in Cyprus that the Emergency Regulations are not being operated with scrupulous impartiality?

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Profumo: I simply will not accept the implications of the hon. Lady's question. There is a later Question on the subject which will be answered by my right hon. Friend. The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is that there were six cases of carrying firearms, four Greek and two Turkish.

Police Sergeant Mustafa Tuna

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the charge brought against Police Sergeant Mustafa Tuna in Cyprus; what is the statutory punishment for this offence; why bail was granted to Police Sergeant Tuna, without guarantors; and what are his present whereabouts.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He was arrested for being in possession of a bomb, for which he was liable to imprisonment for life or a lesser punishment. The grant of personal bail lies solely within the discretion of the judge. Mustafa Tuna left Cyprus for Turkey on 8th July.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied not only that justice was impartially done in this case but that it was seen to be done? Is he aware that this case has caused the gravest misgivings in Cyprus, as an example of apparent favouritism to a Turkish citizen?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would not be proper for me to comment upon any judicial action taken, but I would certainly say that the fact that this man went to Turkey on a Turkish passport, and therefore escaped further proceedings, is highly unfortunate.

Archbishop Makarios

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what response there has been from Her Majesty's Government to the most recent letter of Archbishop Makarios, offering to co-operate in attempting to end violence in Cyprus; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now permit the return of the Archbishop.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of Archbishop Makarios' plea for the cessation of violence, he will now permit the Archbishop to return to Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government have noted the full text of the Archbishop's recent response to the Governor's message. The House will be aware that violence continued after the Archbishop's statement. I see no reason to make an alteration in this aspect of our policy as stated on 19th June, and cannot add to what I said on this matter in reply to supplementary questions on 24th July.

Mrs. Jeger: Is not it getting clearer every day—a fact that we all deeply regret—that the situation in Cyprus cannot be improved without the active participation of Archbishop Makarios? Will not the Government give him a chance to get back among his people, on the spot, to use his power and influence to bring about a better situation in the island?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that we are all anxious to say nothing which will make a solution more difficult, but I must remind the hon. Lady that the statement made by the Archbishop included the words,
The recent Greco-Turkish trouble in Cyprus wholly arises from the Turks.
That statement is certainly not true, nor does making it suggest that the immediate return of Archbishop Makarios would be an appeasing factor in the island.

Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the presence of the Archbishop in the island would be a moderating factor? Does he appreciate that sooner or later he must bring the Archbishop back? Is he determined that it must be too late?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have answered that supplementary question in advance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Government Quarters (Allocation)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the result of the consideration by the Central Whitley Council in Kenya of the allocation of Government quarters on a nonracial basis.

Mr. Profumo: The staff side has not yet been able to produce proposals to put before the Council. The next opportunity for the Council to discuss the question will be in early August but meanwhile all senior African officers in Nairobi have been allotted quarters at European standards.

Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a purely ad hoc solution is not satisfactory, since it does not fulfil the non-racial principle? As this matter has been dragging on since February of this year, can he give some indication of the difficulties on the staff side and what the staff is standing out for?

Mr. Profumo: The difficulties are the practical ones of preparing a detailed scheme which is both in line with the policy of non-racial allocation and fair to those who have joined the Service expecting a certain type of accommodation.

Employment (I.L.O. Convention)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken and are being considered by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to counteract discrimination in employment, including discrimination on grounds of race, in view of the recent Convention adopted by the International Labour Organisation at Geneva.

Mr. Profumo: The Convention was adopted only last month and as Her Majesty's Government have not yet decided what action to take the question does not at present arise.

Sir L. Plummer: Do Her Majesty's Government see any reason why the Convention should not be applied to Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that that is a hypothetical question.

Constitution (Discussions)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir Arthur Benson and the delegation from Northern Rhodesia with regard to constitutional changes.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on his talks with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) yesterday.

Mr. Stonehouse: Can the Colonial Secretary give an assurance that no changes will be imposed in the Protectorate before the House has had a chance of debating them? Will he bear in mind that there is widespread opposition, not only in Northern Rhodesia, but also in this House, to the proposals which will give a majority to the European minority, which is only 3 per cent. of the country's population?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept the hon. Member's description of the White Paper proposals, but I will be quite frank with the House: it will be necessary to advise Her Majesty to make constitutional instruments during the Recess in order that the Government of Northern Rhodesia may proceed with the registration of voters under the new franchise proposals to enable the holding of a new election within the time limits imposed under the present constitutional instruments. The House knows my difficulty, and also knows that I have been long urged to get on with the task of constitutional development in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. Will Her Majesty's Government have the power to impose these constitutional changes without an Order in Council, which should lie upon the Table and be open to debate by the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure about the facts of this Order, but usually there are safeguards for the House in proper cases. But there is no power to prevent a Government Department making an Order generally during the Recess.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the whole House and the Leader of the House will agree that this is an unusual situation, in which substantial constitutional modifications are apparently to be made, and the House of Commons will have no opportunity of pronouncing upon them even though the final responsibility is that of the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House consider the position which is likely to arise, so that we can have a statement, if the situation is so far


advanced, before the House rises, so that we might all have further time to consider what changes are to be made?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps I may answer for Her Majesty's Government. I understand the difficulties but I do not believe that there would be a different policy, whichever party was in power, in regard to the proceedings during the next few months. We cannot stop the necessary work during the Recess. I have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and I should be willing to arrange that the Order should be in two parts and it would then be the second which would enable the changes to take place. We could consider, through the usual channels, whether the House would wish to discuss proposals before an election could take place.

Mr. Wall: Is not it a fact that the delay has been caused by the long discussions about the Constitution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, it has been thoroughly thrashed out.

Mr. Callaghan: Are we likely to have a statement about the proposed machinery before the House rises?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not in addition to what I have said. I think that what I have said will ensure that the House, if it wishes at the time, will be able to have a discussion before irrevocable action is taken.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. Grave issues are involved here for the whole of Central Africa. If there were a demand by hon. Members for a sitting of the House before these proposals are put through, would you take it into consideration, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The only provision made in our Standing Orders for the recall of the House is in Standing Order No. 112. Unless that were put into operation, there would be no way of recalling the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Education

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many boys completed middle school education in Tanganyika at the end of last session for whom places were not

available in secondary schools or trades schools.

Mr. Profumo: A total of 3,850 boys completed middle school education at the end of last session. Of these, 1,759 entered secondary trade schools. Of the balance of 2,091, 362 entered teacher training centres, and some 600 are known to have taken up employment with central or local government, missions and seminaries. Statistics are not available for those who entered the many other fields of employment.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are not enough secondary schools to take all the boys who want to go to them, nor enough trade schools? Will he try to make sure that the comparatively small number of people in the population of Tanganyika who succeed in completing middle school education have an opportunity to go further with their education?

Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. The Tanganyika Government has this matter very much in mind.

Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Under-Secretary confirm that although Tanganyika has a population of about 9 million Africans, fewer than 250 have finished their school certificate course? Is that correct?

Mr. Profumo: I should not like to hazard a guess about those figures without more information, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is usually accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Customs and Income Tax (Changes)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that the recent Customs and Income Tax changes in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika were not considered by the East African Revenue Advisory Board, as provided by Order in Council, how far the new Regulations will be implemented; and what action he proposes to take to clear the confusion in commercial circles in the three territories in regard to customs changes.

Mr. Profumo: It is for the High Commission in its discretion to refer any such question to the Revenue Advisory Board and decisions of this kind cannot by their nature be the subject of prior public discussion. The recent changes came into effect on 8th May although the Income Tax decisions are effective in the main on incomes arising in 1958 and the new Customs Regulations came into full effect only on the 1st July. I see no cause for the confusion which the hon. Member suggests exists.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend been drawn to the speech of the Minister of Commerce and Works in Uganda earlier this month, which was reported in the Uganda and Kenya Press and which was to the effect that the Customs changes were illegal? What action has been taken as a result of that speech?

Mr. Profumo: No action has been taken as a result of that speech.

Makerere College

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why such a high proportion of members of the Council of Makerere College are governmental nominees.

Mr. Profumo: Since the recurrent expenses of Makerere College are met almost entirely by the East African Governments it is not unreasonable that there should be 14 Government nominees, of whom only five are officials, out of a total membership of 23.

Mr. MacPherson: Does the hon. Member realise that the universities in this country also have their recurrent expenses met out of public funds? Does he realise that on the score of academic freedom, if this sort of governing body were offered to any university or university college in this country it would be instantly rejected?

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not wholly appreciated that there is an Academic Board which is responsible to the Council to carry out the academic management of the College. The Makerere College Council is mainly responsible for the financial control and general administration of the College.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Development Corporation

Mr. Mathew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give support to the proposed formation of a development corporation in Hong Kong.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a matter in the first instance for the Government of Hong Kong to consider.

Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Government of Hong Kong to the advantages of the establishment of such a body, which are twofold: first, to co-ordinate the industrial production of Hong Kong, and, secondly, to harmonise United Kingdom and Hong Kong industrial production when there may be conflict?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that it has been arranged that the member who brought this idea forward should put up a plan to the Trade and Industry Advisory Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Tin Mining

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present number of unemployed workers in the tin mining industry in Nigeria; what alternative employment has been found for them; and what proposals are being considered by the industry and Government of Nigeria for the future of the mines, in view of the latest decisions of the International Tin Council.

Mr. Profumo: The labour force has dropped by 22,000 between June, 1957, and June, 1958, but only about 500 have registered as unemployed. The remainder have returned home to work on their farms or have obtained employment elsewhere in Nigeria. If there is continued large-scale redundancy and unemployment resulting in hardship, the Federal and Northern Region Governments will be prepared to consider advancing certain building and development projects in the worst affected areas in order to provide some alternative employment. The extension of the railway from Jos to Maiduguri is expected to begin within the next two months and


in recruiting the labour force for this work preference will be given to unemployed miners.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Member say whether plans are being made for the re-assembly of this labour force when full production is possible again?

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that any active plans are being made, but I judge that it will not be very difficult to reassemble the labour force.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Discussions

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet reached a decision on the future of Malta as a result of his discussions with the Governor.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the discussions with the Governor of Malta respecting the constitutional future of the island have now been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My discussions with the Governor are nearly over and I hope to make a statement before the House rises.

Mr. Rankin: Would not the Colonial Secretary think it a worth-while gesture at the moment to release those who are held in political detention, and, secondly, to consider the advisability of withdrawing the emergency regulations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir—to both questions.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that Friday, when the House rises, coincides with three months of emergency in Malta? Will he now consider allowing the state of emergency to die a natural death? May I also ask him to give further consideration to the constitution that he proposed a few months ago? Further, is he aware that a commercial undertaking has offered to do the work in the dockyard, but that it proposes to employ only 4,000 men, instead of 13,000? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that alternative employment will be found for the remainder?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will be well advised to await my statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Constitution (Proposals)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the constitutional proposals for the future of Uganda that have been submitted to the Governor by J. K. Babiiha, Member of the Legislative Council, on behalf of the Toro Kingdom; and what action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These proposals have not been submitted to the Governor. I feel that no action is called for on my part, although these suggestions are an interesting stimulus to public discussion in Uganda.

Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind the ignorance of the Minister about these proposals, will he confirm the fact that the smaller kingdoms of Uganda are distinctly apprehensive of Buganda, and the Buganda Government as a whole? Will he give the House an assurance that he will safeguard the interests of the smaller kingdoms, if and when any future constitution is being considered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Newspaper Article

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Gibraltar Legislative Council protesting against libellous innuendoes concerning the loyalty of Gibraltar during the war contained in an article in the Sunday Dispatch, 6th July, 1958; and what action he will take to reassure the people of Gibraltar of the Government's appreciation of their services in the war.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I am sure that all in this House will wish the Gibraltar Legislative Council to know that any imputation on the loyalty of the people of Gibraltar is deeply resented in this country.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Member aware that that Answer will cause great


satisfaction in Gibraltar, where the Legislative Council described that article in the Sunday Dispatch as deliberate lies and an unwarranted libel? Will he take steps to see that his remarks are passed on to the Legislative Council?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, certainly. I think that the article complained of contained a deplorable statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet been able to make arrangements to meet the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey to discuss the future of Cyprus.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add at present to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 24th July.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly five weeks since the Prime Minister promised this House that he would go anywhere and meet anybody in an endeavour to bring the Cyprus problem nearer a solution? Is it the intention of the Government that the House should rise without any further initiative being taken to improve this really disastrous situation in the island?

Mr. Butler: There is no intention that no further initiative should be taken. I cannot indicate this afternoon when such an initiative would be, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would feel himself stopped from departing from his original wish, namely, that such talks should take place and that every possible step should be taken to ensure peace in the island.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that the whole House is deeply shocked and disturbed at the succession of murders in Cyprus in the last week or so. I was wondering whether it might be worth while inviting the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers to join with our Prime Minister in an appeal that Cypriots should end violence.

Mr. Butler: I will certainly bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is engaged today in concluding the discussions that have been taking place over the weekend, and he has asked me to regret that he could not be present in the House this afternoon. I will convey the right hon Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISION)

Mr. Leather: asked the Prime Minister if he will announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to televising the ceremony of the Opening of Parliament.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
This matter is under consideration and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make an announcement before the House rises.

Mr. Leather: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the arguments which are now being dealt with are very similar to those gone through over the televising of the Coronation and, indeed, over the televising of Her Majesty's opening of Parliament in Ottawa a few months ago—and that in each case the decision to televise the ceremony was amply justified by the results, and that in fact a decision to do so in this case would cause great pleasure to the vast majority of our people?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend may rest assured that these precedents have been carefully studied, and the resultant conclusion has been registered, but we must also take into consideration the point of view of hon. Members of this House, and of many people who have a different attitude in this matter. The concluding decision will be given after hon. Members—not only among the Opposition but others—have had an opportunity of expressing their opinions.

Mr. Woodburn: If a decision is taken to televise the ceremony, would not it be desirable that it should be done in colour, so that the film could go all over the world and be seen with a colourful background? I am not commenting upon the wisdom or otherwise of the decision.

Mr. Butler: One of the problems of colour is the intense heat of the lights which are necessary for any such process. I can give no undertaking that technical considerations would not rule out this medium on this occasion.

Sir G. Nicholson: What steps, if any, is my right hon. Friend taking to find out the opinion of hon. Members?

Mr. Butler: I am usually very closely in touch with the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and I have been fully informed of them. I have also taken the opportunity to ask the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, which I hope he will be good enough to give the Government in due course.

Mr. V. Yates: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if there are to be any extensions of the B.B.C. or other television services, there would be much resentment if the television cameras were to be turned only on the small clique that seems so far to have been under the influence? [Laughter.]

Hon. Members: Answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: I have a word to say to the House about the business for the next two days—or nights.
I have been deeply impressed with the number of hon. Members who desire to raise matters after 7 o'clock on Thursday, which was the time allotted to hon. Members to raise them. There are so many subjects that it looks like being a very prolonged sitting. As tomorrow is the occasion of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation Bill), and we may have some time after the conclusion of the debate on the National Health Service—assuming that that finishes at a reasonable hour—I was wondering whether some hon. Members could raise their subjects tomorrow night instead of on Thursday; so that we could perhaps have two late sittings instead of one very late sitting.
If hon. Members think that suggestion worthy of exploration, and if they will contact the Minister who is to reply to the subjects they raise, to see whether they can arrange for the business to be taken tomorrow after the conclusion of

the main debate, and let me know, I will do my best to make arrangements for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Chetwynd: To get some sort of order into those debates, Mr. Speaker, will you advise the House about what the subjects are likely to be, so that we can follow on in some organised way?

Mr. Speaker: I will do what I can about that.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE (MR. KHRUSHCHEV'S LETTER)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BESWICK: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to meet Mr. Khrushchev.

Mr. Beswick: rose—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether, in the exceptional circumstances—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order is being raised.

Mr. Beswick: I was rising to a point of order, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Then I will call Mr. Beswick.

Mr. Beswick: The point I wish to raise is this, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure that the Government wish to extract themselves from the impossible position in which they have been placed by the summit exchanges, will the Lord Privy Seal give an answer to Question No. 48?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that.

Mr. Silverman: As a matter of fact, I was proposing to raise exactly the same point, Sir.
I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the very exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves and because, apparently, Parliament is to adjourn very soon, the natural interest of Members of Parliament in the televising of the opening of Parliament next November ought not to be allowed to displace their more immediate interests in more important matters

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of the interest of hon. Members in the televising of the opening of Parliament that is the concern here. It is the Standing Order which limits Question Time to this hour. There is no precedent that I know of which would justify me in allowing Questions after the hour, unless I have been given notice beforehand.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I add a few words in support of my hon. Friends on this matter? Had we supposed that Question No. 48 would not be reached, I think I should have asked you to be allowed to put down a Private Notice Question. I should have thought that most hon. Members were very much concerned with the situation over the Summit Conference, and I am sure the Government are. If the Lord Privy Seal were prepared to answer the Question on behalf of the Prime Minister, I wonder whether, in those circumstances, you would be prepared to allow him to do so, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: A Minister is always entitled to make a statement, with the permission of the House, if he feels that he should do so in the public interest, but not to answer a Question unless he has given notice that he proposes to do so. That is the position under the rules of the House.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am quite ready to make a short statement. It is, in fact, only a holding statement. It is as follows. As the House knows, my right hon Friend the Prime Minister has now received a further letter from Mr. Khrushchev, the full text of which was available only this morning. We shall consult urgently with our allies about this. As regards the arrangement for a meeting, including the representation of other States, I would refer to my right hon. Friend's last letter to Mr. Khrushchev, which was published on Sunday.

Mr. Beswick: Arising out of that statement which the Lord Privy Seal has been kind enough to make to the House, may I ask whether he can say now what is the reason which prevents Her Majesty's Government from naming the date for the Summit Conference? May we have an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal that he will be able to give

us a date before the time at present fixed for the rising of this House?

Mr. Butler: Consultations must take place, but nobody can say that my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government have not acted with the utmost dispatch, both in answering Mr. Khrushchev's letters and in the scope and pithiness of our replies. I do not anticipate that my right hon. Friend or Her Majesty's Government will delay in any way in making a further answer to Mr. Khrushchev's letter. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the request of the hon. Gentleman, which, I believe, represents feelings held elsewhere, that the House should receive the maximum information before we rise.

Mr. Foot: Since the Prime Minister's letter of 26th July made no specific reference to the matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the participation of interested Arab States in the proposed summit meeting?

Mr. Butler: The answer of 26th July suggested that the necessary arrangements should be made with the permanent representatives of the members of the Security Council. It also stated that my right hon. Friend would be ready to go to New York for a meeting, if Mr. Khrushchev would also go. I agree that there is no detailed reference to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot go any further in answering that matter today.

Mr. Gaitskell: First, I should like to thank the Lord Privy Seal for his courtesy in making that statement. May I ask whether he is aware that while we gave our full support to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government that the Summit Conference should take place under the aegis of the Security Council, and while we think it most desirable that it should be associated with the United Nations, we also strongly supported the proposal that there should be private meetings taking place simultaneously? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the desirability of this association with the United Nations to obstruct the holding of any Summit Conference altogether?

Mr. Butler: I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that


it has always been his intention, and that of Her Majesty's Government, that the procedure should be formal and informal. That would give the opportunities which the right hon. Gentleman desires.

Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand that that would not include the possibility of representatives of the Arab States being present?

Mr. Butler: I would like at this stage to say that it would certainly not exclude the possibility of other States being associated with the talks.

Mr. Gower: May I ask, in relation to the question put by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), whether it Is not difficult to understand how this country alone can fix a date until it has consulted all the other countries concerned?

Mr. Butler: That illustrates part of the difficulty of the procedure, but it should not in any way detract from the desire of Her Majecty's Government that such talks should take place as soon as possible.

Mr. S. Silverman: Should it turn out on further investigation that some, though not all, of the nations which might attend a Summit Conference are willing to attend at an earlier date, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government would be in favour of a meeting of those who are prepared to meet while those who are not prepared to meet can stay away?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that I should take my answers any further today. I have done my best to give the House the latest information and to say that we shall give the House any further information we can before the House rises. It is quite clear that it is Her Majesty's Government's wish that a conference of the type suggested should be effective. A definition of what "effective" means must be analysed when we see the reply.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that when we put on the Order Paper Questions for answer by the Prime Minister we frequently have to undergo the frustrating experience of sitting throughout Question Time without the Questions being reached, could you not give consideration to arrangements being made for the Prime Minister to be given a third day, or for his Questions to be advanced on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — OPENCAST COAL BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Consideration of the Lords Amendments in the Title, line 7, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Amendments.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

Clause 5.—(EFFECT OF OPENCAST SITE ORDERS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 6, line 35, leave out "a compulsory rights order, being".

In page 7, line 5, leave out "compulsory rights".

Clause 7.—(GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON EFFECT OF COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 18, at end insert:
(b) any rights of any statutory water undertakers under any public general Act relating to the supply of water, or under any byelaw made by virtue of such an Act, or under any local enactment, in so far as (apart from this Act) the Act, byelaw or enactment restricts, or enables the undertakers to restrict, the working of coal or other minerals, or the doing of any other act, on land comprised in the order;

3.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment fulfils an undertaking in another place to ensure that the National Coal Board cannot override, by means of a compulsory rights order, certain provisions of the 1945 Water Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 30, after "include" insert:
the following:—
(a)

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 32, deal with a similar point. They ensure that the Coal Board cannot override by means of a compulsory rights order certain provisions of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, and various local Acts.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 8, line 32, at end insert:
(b) any rights of the body carrying on a railway, canal, inland navigation, harbour or dock undertaking (not being rights falling within the last preceding subsection) under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act) in so far as (apart from this Act) the enactment would operate so as—

(i) to restrict, or enable that body to restrict, the working of coal or other minerals on land comprised in the order which is adjacent to a railway, waterway, harbour, dock or other works situated on land not comprised in the order, being works vested in that body or works which they have any right or duty to maintain, or
(ii) to require, or enable that body to require, coal or other minerals on land comprised in the order to be left unworked for the protection or support of such a railway, waterway, harbour, dock or other works."

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 10, at end insert:
(8) In this section 'statutory water undertakers' and 'local enactment' have the same meanings as in the Water Act, 1945.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the next two Amendments, in lines 11 and 13, are consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 11, leave out "the reference" and insert:
references to statutory water undertakers, to the Water Act 1945, and".

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 13, leave out "a reference" and insert:
respectively references to a local water authority, to the Water (Scotland) Act. 1946, and".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: This Amendment has a Scottish application. I wonder, therefore, whether we could have guidance from a representative of the Scottish Office.

Sir I. Horobin: The three Amendments are, as I said on the previous Amendment, entirely consequential. They do not raise a point of substance at all.

Mr. Ross: Nevertheless, this is a Scottish Amendment and as Scotland is involved we should have a Scottish Law Officer to advise us.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8.—(LIMITED COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 29, after "lease" insert:
or order conferring working rights".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is the first of a series dealing with a small point about the rights to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. There are persons who have obtained these rights by court order. The Amendments provide that such a person shall be treated as if he were the mineral lessee.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 31, to leave out paragraph (d).

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is the first of another series of Amendments which leave out a number of references to timber which are survivals from an earlier draft. In due course I shall move Amendments to Clause 51 to assimilate these two easements and similar rights which make a neater way of dealing with this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM INCLUSION IN COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 45, at end insert:
(4) An opencast site order as confirmed by the Minister, shall not comprise any land of which possession—

(a) has previously been taken in the exercise of emergency powers, and
(b) has at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) been retained in the exercise of those powers for the purpose of working coal on that land, or on land contiguous therewith, by opencast operations, and
(c) has before the confirmation of the order ceased to be retained in the exercise of those powers,

unless, at the time of confirming the order, the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances existing at that time, or special circumstances relating to the land in question, which justify its inclusion in an opencast site order notwithstanding that possession thereof has previously been so taken and retained.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a more important Amendment, but I am sure that it will be generally agreeable. It deals with compulsory rights orders on land which has been previously requisitioned. In all parts of the House and in the Committee it was felt that this Amendment was desirable because it says that there must be special circumstances. There might be a greatly increased need for coal, yet a very great amount of coal might be sterilised by the Coal Board not being able to go over a very small piece of land twice. I think that it will be generally agreed that in special circumstances the Board should go twice over the same land.

Mr. Harold Neal: The Amendment deals with what the Parliamentary Secretary described formerly as a very important, contentious and difficult matter. We are grateful to him for fulfilment, in part, the undertaking he gave us on Third Reading, but for us to say that we are satisfied with the drafting of the Amendment would be an exaggeration. We wish it were couched in more precise terms.
Where there have been cases of re-entry on ground that has formerly been excavated by opencast mining there have been exceptional hardship and inconvenience. I have never been able to understand why a second or third seam could not be excavated at the first entry. Planning has gone wrong somewhere if, after land has been restored, a second entry has to be made. In Lancashire, Derbyshire and other parts of the country a great deal of inconvenience has been suffered from second entry.
When land has been excavated, and restoration has been made, the farmer imagines that his tenant right has been restored and that he can get back to normal agricultural production. It is an enormous disappointment for him to find that his land has to be churned up again, his stock interrupted and his production stopped. The inhabitants of the area also conclude that when restoration has been made they are finished with the inconveniences of dust and dirt and village life being incommoded by the traffic in opencast coal being conveyed


through the streets. It is a deep disappointment to those people when a second entry has to be made. As we emphasised in Committee and on Third Reading, we wish that this could be entirely eliminated.
I can illustrate the position by quoting the case, of which I have informed the Parliamentary Secretary, of the village of Tibshelf, in my constituency. That village has suffered opencast mining operations in one way or another since 1944. The entire perimeter of the area is residential and has been excavated. There is now a proposal to make a second entry and, in one part of the site, it will be a third entry. The exasperating part of the matter is that the second entry was most disappointing. Thousands of tons of coal had to be buried because it was unsuitable. Nearby there is a school at which the studies of the children will be interrupted for a second time in a few years. Although the Ministry informs me that silencers are to be fixed to bulldozers and draglines, that is not like fixing silencers to motor cycles.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the provision in paragraph (c), which says:
unless at the time of confirming the order, the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances existing at that time, or special circumstances relating to the land in question, which justify its inclusion in an opencast site order notwithstanding that possession thereof has previously been so taken and retained.
We should like to know what "special circumstances" are intended. Would they be a thick seam, a thin overburden, or the calorific value of the coal concerned? We were indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for telling us on Second Reading that except in circumstances where there is a substantial quantity of coal involved second entry will not be made.
Does a substantial quantity mean 1,000 tons of coal or more? We were also informed that if no second entry were allowed 10 million tons of coal would be sterilised, but that would not be a great loss in view of the fact that 4½ million tons are already in stock and cannot be sold.
We would rather see this matter more strictly defined in the Clause. I am advised that it is not possible to put in

legislation an absolute duty on a Minister, but the terms of this Amendment are so ill-considered and ill-defined as to be a disappointment to us in that regard. We hope that the Minister will exercise the powers conferred on him under this Clause with the utmost sympathy and consideration.

Mr. Tom Brown: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. H. Neal), I feel far from satisfied with this Lords Amendment. It is not our intention to divide the House on it, but we feel entitled to reinforce the plea which we put in Committee. I know I should be ruled out of order if I started to argue the case for the discontinuance of second or third visits to opencast sites, but I am very anxious about this matter.
I am particularly anxious about those unfortunate people in districts where opencast mining has been going on—as in my constituency—for sixteen years. That is a long time for people to be inconvenienced and to have their peaceful enjoyment of the land disturbed. Now it is proposed that those in charge of opencast operations should be able to visit these sites two, three or four times. In passing, may I say that I am greatly indebted to the Department for the decision taken last week in connection with the site known as Smithy Wood. It has been decided that for the time being the fourth visit to that site will be suspended. I am grateful for that declaration of an armistice, but I am particularly worried about the wording of this Clause and about what has fallen from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary.
I do not want the hon. Gentleman to have the idea that I mistrust his words, or have no confidence in what he says, but I am very troubled. My concern is based on past experience in dealing with regional officers. I want to know who is to determine the "special circumstances" mentioned in the Amendment. Are they to be regional officers, resident engineers, or contractors who have entered into contracts to work opencast coal? We should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary about who is to determine the special circumstances in relation to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
I am not reading from a textbook, but speaking from painful experience. I


do not want to rouse myself into indignation because of treatment meted out to my people in Garswood and Ashtonin-Makerfield, where attempts have been made to persuade the regional officer and the resident engineer not to do such and such things because that would be detrimental to those living in areas adjacent to an opencast site. Very much to my surprise and regret, officials have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the local authorities. We have reached a stage in the process of opencast mining at which we should not allow that to happen. Let us give a little consideration to those who live on these sites and to what they have passed through in the last fourteen, fifteen or sixteen years.
In view of the stocks of coal which are on hand and the difficulty of disposal of small coal now produced by opencast mining operations, we ought to have an assurance that the special circumstances on which the Minister will base permission for a second or third visit to a site will be decided either by the Minister himself, the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers, or the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I say emphatically that this should not be left to regional officers. I am not saying this with disrespect to those officers, but because I feel keenly about the matter. These officers live in salubrious surroundings in places like Sale and other parts of Cheshire. They have no conception of what people in opencast mining districts are passing through and have had to pass through. For more than sixteen years these people have been experiencing inconvenience and loss of peaceful enjoyment of amenities.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give these people some respite. Let it not be said that hon. Members of this House allowed this work to be continued when it could have been stopped.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. When authorisation is sought, which would include land the subject of this Amendment, will it be possible, when objection or representations are made under the authorisation order, for the Minister or whoever gives the decision, to make quite clear what the special circumstances referred to are?

Mr. J. T. Price: I share the apprehensions which have been voiced so strongly by my hon. Friends. There are whole areas of land which, to all intents and purposes, have been turned into the equivalent of battlefields with all the resultant inconvenience and distress to the local population. Having once tasted this experience, unless there are very special circumstances those people ought not to be subject to a second visitation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), I speak from personal knowledge and experience of large tracts of country in the part of Lancashire I have the honour to represent, which resemble the fields of Flanders during the First World War. They have been torn and riven, often to depths of 80 ft. or 100 ft. Although economic circumstances are quite different from those of the time when we reluctantly agreed to these operations being started, we find an ever-increasing demand from the technical people running the operation to have at their disposal more land on which to keep the machines working.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, from his technical information and advice, whether a special circumstance could be defined and accepted by the Ministry as meaning long-term contracts which have been made by contractors employing machines, which often cost £1¼ million each, and for the purpose of keeping those contracts going. Is the main purpose of the operation to provide more coal, or is the process reaching such a stage that a vested interest has been created to provide more sites to keep the machines going?
This is a very serious matter. In my constituency, which has been as greatly affected as any part of the country, there is rising public indignation. I know that I am going a little beyond the narrow terms of this Clause, part of which is good, but which does not go so far as we want it to go. We do not want any loopholes left for those who have a vested interest in this matter. I speak without disrespect of any individual, but there is an interest among surveyors and inspectors in finding new land which can be dug up for sites. I hope that this House will never be so insensitive to public duty as to condone a situation in which the needs of the machine are given a greater


importance than the needs of the people so greatly affected by opencast mining operations. This Bill has had a long and patient examination in Committee, and at this late stage the Minister should not allow this Clause to be used merely to define as a special circumstance something necessary to keep the contracts going—because this work is being done by outside contract.
We know that when this form of mining was started, the country was crying out for all the coal that it could get. We had to do it. The machines had to be bought at a very high price from America and elsewhere, and in conditions in which private commercial contracts were made involving special depreciation on account of the high initial cost of the machines, but let it never be the policy of the Ministry to say that it is right to go from bad to worse, with all the distress that this work causes, merely to allow surveyors to find new tracts of land to dig up so that machines can be kept going.
We in this House are concerned with keeping those whom we represent happy, and unless the Minister can say that this process is economically justified in the wider interests of the country, he can rest assured that many of us who represent the industrial areas will continue to oppose, by every legitimate means, further inroads into our land.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I was not on the Committee that discussed the Bill but, like many other hon. Members from the mining areas, I am particularly disturbed that we should have had such an Amendment as this at this late stage in the Bill's progress through Parliament. Each and every one of us in the industrial areas of the North has been disturbed by the immediate effects of the first operation.
I was very interested to hear the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), who said that the second and third operation might be regarded as special circumstances because of the existence of a second or third seam. My hon. Friend also asked about the 10 million tons of coal that would otherwise be sterilized, It seems that the Minister's determination will rest on the belief that that amount of coal is,

in all probability, likely to be sterilised unless extracted by opencast operation. I believe that the contractors will look very favourably on a second and third visit to a site, but I think that we would do an injustice to those areas where opencast mining has already been going on for so long if we allowed this Amendment to pass.
One of my hon. Friends has said that it is not the intention of this side of the House to divide against the Amendment, but I sincerely hope that we will divide and thereby lodge our protest against the attitude of another place in sending us such an Amendment as this. I remember that when one of the most important Bills ever to go through this House was being dealt with in Committee, one Clause contained the words "where practicable".
We have similar circumstances here in defining the phrase "special circumstances." Who will determine these special circumstances? That is the crux of the matter. Up to now we have not had a satisfactory answer to that question, and unless we do get a satisfactory answer, unless we are told who is to be responsible for interpreting "special circumstances," I sincerely hope that we on this side will divide against the Amendment.

Mr. William Ainsley: When opencast mining first started I was an underground worker, and we miners were fearful because this work was then shortening the life of the collieries. From that day onwards my constituency has suffered from the ravages of opencast working. Not more than a mile from my own home we have had opencast workings. The top soil has been replaced, the grass seed has been sown and the grass is already growing, but only last weekend I noticed that even larger bulldozers were being brought on to two sites in particular, and that they were again removing the top soil before proceeding to even deeper opencast working.
4.15 p.m.
As with factory production, opencast mining is improving in technique. Machines are being made bigger and stronger, and they can go deeper. This is resulting in these opencast sites being opened up two or three times, and it will


not only upset the social amenities of the areas affected but will also have a disastrous effect on the mining communities in those areas. It is having a psychological effect on the underground workers. These facts should be borne in mind.
We also have to remember that these machines are being operated by private enterprise and, as a result of these longterm contracts, the work is going forward regardless of its effect on social amenities. As the Parliamentary Secretary will know, I have already drawn his attention to what I call the disastrous effects on the social life of one area, and the effect it will have on agriculture and the farming community there.
Will the Minister please give consideration to all these facts, and especially the disturbing effect that the result of these ravages is having not only upon human life, but on cattle and on the production of milk and eggs?

Mr. Charles A. Howell: In considering these Amendments, I have been forced to the conclusion that, whilst I cannot regard them as had, they could be better. It is remarkable that the Parliamentary Secretary is getting neither support nor condemnation from his own side, but I cannot help thinking of what would have happened had his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) been here. That hon. Member loses no opportunity of criticising anything to do with the nationalised industries, and this Amendment provides an opportunity for anyone so minded to be rather cynical about the operation of a nationalised industry.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House who exactly is to determine the need for these subsequent phases of opencast operations. Is it to be the same person who recommended the original reinstatement? Will he be the person who decides to reopen the site for the second stage, or will it be someone else? In my own industry, the railways, if a workman makes a mistake he is disciplined, but here it seems that someone must have made a mistake in the first place.
Someone has first to decide to go to the expense of closing an opencast site. To reinstate it costs a lot of money, but to

reopen it will give a chance for cynics to say, As soon as the grass begins to grow, you can bet your life that the bulldozers will be back". Whoever decided to close the site and to reinstate it must have made a mistake if, later, another expert says, "We will reopen it." There must have been a mistake, otherwise they would not have gone to the expense of reinstating the site in the first instance.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us who is to make the decision to reopen. A considerable amount of public money is involved in reopening, as in reinstating. I do not want to see this or any other nationalised industry brought into ridicule, but I think that this Amendment will provide a strong opportunity for that to happen.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: In what I think is an unusually thick-skinned mood, the Parliamentary Secretary had not, I think, realised that there is a lack of enthusiasm for this Amendment, and some concern as to whether it will achieve anything at all. In Committee, and I think on Third Reading, we were all agreed that, unless there are quite overwhelming reasons for so doing, it is obviously most undesirable ever to reopen a piece of land once it has been restored. In Committee, we were given the assurance that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that the Minister would confirm an opencast site order permitting the site to be worked a second, third or fourth time.
This Amendment seeks to write that assurance into the Bill, but what I would respectfully put forward for consideration by the Minister is something which, I think, would give a great deal more effect to it. I suggest that, in giving effect to this Amendment, the Minister should undertake that, in any such case, when confirming the order, he will state what are the special circumstances that have led him to that confirmation. People would then know what was operating in the Minister's mind, and what were the overwhelming reasons.
Unless the Minister does that, the whole of this Amendment is pure verbiage. It achieves nothing whatever, because the Minister already, before confirming the order, must, if he is to do the job properly, take all the circumstances into account, and, in view of all the assurances


already given, he will not confirm an order so as to allow a site to be worked a second and third time after restoration unless he thinks that there are special circumstances that warrant it. Therefore, unless there is to be something different in practice, all this will be mere verbiage.
If the Minister would undertake, when certifying that there were special circumstances, to state in his certificate what those special circumstances were there would be something for people to get their teeth into, and they would be able to see what were the overriding reasons to justify the action in that particular case. Moreover, if he did state what his reasons were, and it was found that he had taken into consideration an irrelevant circumstance, that would be something that could be challenged in the courts by the injured party. But if, as so often happens in this sort of case, the Minister merely says, "I have considered the matter fully, and have decided that there are special circumstances", though the Minister may be taking into account something entirely irrelevant the subject has no remedy in the courts whatsoever. I would, therefore, urge that this course be adopted. We might then have something tangible in the way of a concession, rather than a mere sop that achieves nothing.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that the hon. Members who have spoken, at any rate those who were on the Committee, will not disagree with me when I say that I have already made it quite plain that I share all their anxieties and their distaste for going on to the same land more than once.
I think that in fairness to the Coal Board—this is a point which those who were on the Committee will appreciate—I must correct the suggestion that it has always to be the result of a mistake. That is not so. In the early stages, when machines were small, they could not get down to some of the depths required and which are very economical. So it would not be fair to the Coal Board to suggest that it is always a question of a mistake.
I am sure that everyone is agreed that, if it can be avoided, it is thoroughly undesirable to go back a second time, let alone four or five times. The whole problem that arises—and hon. Members will recall that I made inquiries at an

earlier stage—is simply that it appears that there genuinely are cases where very large quantities of coal would be sterilised if use were not made of the more powerful machinery that is available. The position, therefore, is how to try to balance the rights and wrongs of the matter and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) said, to try to write into the Bill, so far as we can, what has been quite clearly expressed to me, that the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are entirely in agreement with those expressed on both sides of the House.
I think that I can reassure the House quite considerably on a number of points which have been raised. The easiest way of doing so is to follow the request of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) by going a little more into detail than I did in opening, on the last paragraph of the Amendment itself.
We have to be clear what is happening. It is not an authorisation, as was suggested by one hon. Member opposite. This is a compulsory opencast site order, and it has to be confirmed by the Minister. It is, therefore, the Minister who is responsible, having, of course, taken all advice on these matters. There is no question of regional officers or anyone else entering into it. The Minister is responsible. Unless he confirms the order it has no effect, and the Minister can be held accountable to this House.
There are two types of circumstances in the Amendment which we are considering and they both deal with points which have been raised. First, there may be special circumstances existing at the time. This is precisely the kind of consideration which led the Minister to postpone the particular proposals which were referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown).
There are what I might call coal supply conditions, when we need coal very much more than we do at other times, and when the immediate need for coal is less it would be reasonable, under this Amendment, and it would, in fact, take place, that the Minister could say that it might be right to go twice over a particular site, in spite of all the disadvantages, if there were a coal famine. But at this time it would be quite unreasonable to put people to all that inconvenience when


there is possibly a temporary surplus. That is the effect of the words
special circumstances existing at that time.
Then, of course, there may be special circumstances relating to the land in question. Those are cases which really do exist. I have satisfied myself very carefully on this point with the Coal Board. For technical reasons, the run of the strata or whatever it may be, there may be quite a disproportionate amount of coal made inaccessible if the Board cannot go over perhaps quite a small area a second time. That would be the kind of consideration which would be material in considering whether there would be special circumstances relating to the land.

Mr. J. T. Price: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary may be overlooking one important aspect of this matter. The Amendment which we are discussing does not deal only with the Minister's approval to extract the coal a second or third time. It relates to the prospecting operations. In that connection, the visit of a surveyor and people drilling holes may create a great nuisance to the farmer in possession of the land, because water will come out of the holes in bad weather and create springs, as I have often seen in my own division.

Sir I. Horobin: This is a very complicated Bill, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that he is on an irrelevant point. It does not arise on this Amendment. It has nothing to do with prospecting at all.
The next point that I should like to make clear is on procedure. I think that what I have to say will reassure hon. Members on a number of points. The position here is that the initiative has to be taken by the Coal Board. It is the Coal Board which starts things off and says, "I want to take compulsory rights over certain land." It is not the contractor or anyone else. It is the Board which starts this operation off and, the authorisation having been gone through, it says, "We want to have compulsory powers for such and such land."
That request, as it were, from the Coal Board has to go to the Minister. If the Amendment is accepted, the Coal Board will have to say precisely what special considerations it relies on, either in respect of time or in respect of the land,

in asking the Minister to allow it to go over land which has been under-requisition and which has since been abandoned.
The Coal Board will have to say exactly on what it relies to justify going twice. Having said that to the Minister, the Minister will have to confirm it. I am glad to be able to say—and this will, I am sure, satisfy and please hon. Members—that this point has been taken already by the Minister. It is the intention of the Minister in every case to give reasoned decisions; and that puts more teeth into the Amendment.
The only other thing on which I think I ought to assure the House—and then I hope that hon. Members will be willing to accept this as a genuine attempt to deal with a difficult problem—is that while, of course, this Amendment procedure can come into legal effect only when the Bill is passed, my noble Friend has already given instructions that as a matter of administrative practice these considerations shall become operative at once in relation to land which, as the House will realise, for some time in the future may be taken under requisition procedure. I hope that the House will feel that we have made a genuine effort to meet hon. Members on this point.

Mr. Slater: The Minister has said that the application comes from the Coal Board in the first place. It makes an application to go ahead for a second or third time on land recognised as being opencast, and the Minister then determines his reasons for giving that consent on the considerations given to him by the Board. Does he take into account any other considerations? Does he send anyone from his Department to see the site, or does he determine his decision by what he receives from the Board in the course of the application? If that is the position, does he not agree that it will not give us that firm finality which we desire to have in regard to this matter?

Sir I. Horobin: The Minister would obviously not say, "The Coal Board says that this is right, and therefore it is right." I do not think that hon. Members opposite would have quite such unbounded confidence in the Coal Board's statements. The Minister is responsible for checking what is said to him. The Board says, "I want to do this for such


and such reasons". It is for the Minister to satisfy himself that those reasons are either good or bad, and he must stand or fall on that by reason of his responsibility to Parliament. I do not think that I can go further than that. It is his responsibility to satisfy himself that there are these special circumstances.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Before the Minister decides, could he not communicate with the local authority concerned and present to that local authority the reasons given to him by the Coal Board?

Sir I. Horobin: The administrative machinery for consultation in all these cases is very well established. I do not think that one could conceivably attempt to write into the Bill all the people with whom the Minister should or should not consult in every case. One must assume that when one says that the Minister is responsible for satisfying himself that there are these special circumstances, he will take the necessary and sensible steps administratively to put himself in possession of the facts and judge of them.

Mr. Oliver: The Minister is sidestepping the issue. The point that I put to him was quite clear. It is true that there may not be an authorisation; probably that stage has passed. When will the public, the owners of the land, the local authorities and the planning committees have an opportunity of expressing themselves on whether the land should or should not be opened again? If it is just a question of the Minister being satisfied by the Coal Board that its proposals are justified by reason of the circumstances being exceptional, what opportunity have the people of objecting to this land being opened, particularly if the opportunity for a public inquiry has passed before the Minister gives his reasons?

Mr. T. Brown: I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has done his level best to explain to us—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member may ask a question, but he must not make another speech. He has already spoken. Perhaps he can put his words in the form of a question.

Mr. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary appears to have some knowledge of the machinery involved, but not a complete knowledge. We have two departments—the Coal Board and the opencast mining branch. Which of those two departments has the final say whether to permit a second visitation to an opencast site?

Sir I. Horobin: Neither. The final say is in the hands of the Minister responsible to Parliament. The Minister has to be satisfied by the Coal Board of the reasons on which they rely. He then goes into the matter and gives a reasoned decision. As the hon. and learned Gentleman points out, if in that decision he is relying on matters which are improper or irrelevant it can be tested in the courts. I do not think that one can go any further.

Mr. MacDermot: Am I right in thinking that there is a further answer to this point? Is it not correct that before any land could be re-opened under this Measure, the Coal Board would have to obtain a fresh authorisation before reaching this stage at all, and that when it does that there is ample provision in the Bill for local authorities and all other interested persons to make their representations? All that will have been done long before we get to this stage.

Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Member is correct. I thought that as the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) was on the Standing Committee he would have appreciated that. All that authorisation procedure must be gone through, and, as is pointed out, that is the time when these representations will take place. We are now purely at the stage in which, authorisation having been obtained for working opencast coal, the question of compulsorily taking rights over a particular piece of land arises. Therefore, the hon. Member is perfectly correct in what he said. I assumed that Members who were on the Committee would have appreciated that fact already.

Mr. Oliver: The Parliamentary Secretar was on the Committee, but he does not seem to have appreciated the point at issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15.—(SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 20, at end insert:
(c) any reference to the provision of a suitable alternative right of way shall be construed as a reference to the making of a suitable alternative way available for use by the public during the period for which the order under that section remains in force;

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Neal: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would it be convenient to take the subsequent Amendments in pages 18 and 19?

Sir I. Horobin: It is intended to take all the Government Amendments to this Clause together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am agreeable if that is the wish of the House.

Sir I. Horobin: These Amendments deal with a very simple point relating to public rights of way. If these Amendments were not made, it would be necessary to dedicate the new temporary right of way and then undedicate it when the old one was back in use, and this would be an extraordinarily cumbrous and expensive proceeding. All that these Amendments do is to say that if the Board, under its powers, has suspended a right of way it must make available for public use an alternative one, but it will not be necessary to dedicate it. The dedicated right of way is suspended. We think this is a sensible provision.

Mr. Neal: We consider that these Amendments are fair and reasonable. It is obvious that the Coal Board would have been placed in exceptional difficulties if, after excavating and restoring the site, there were two paths instead of one. It would involve considerable expense if the original right of way had to be undedicated.
I believe that the circumstances in which this may arise are very few, but when rights of way are removed the local inhabitants are very conscious of their rights. Although these paths may sometimes be little used, the inhabitants are inclined to feel that they have lost a valuable right if they are unable to use the paths. In the past, contractors have always tried to provide an alternative path. That is what will have to be done

in this case. There will have to be an alternative path and not a right of way so that there will not be any need to undedicate the original path. We therefore support this Amendment.

Mr. T. Brown: We on this side of the House appreciate the importance of this and the subsequent four Amendments to this Clause. We stressed the importance of this matter in Standing Committee. What troubles me is the attitude that is adopted by contractors responsible for the extraction of opencast coal and the difficulty experienced in securing a proper roadway from the site to the main thoroughfare. I know that these Amendments deal specifically with alternative roadways; they are not permanent but are alternative to the way which is being removed.
An alternative roadway which is constructed in the course of winning opencast coal in order to transport it from the site to the depositing station may become what we know as a first-class roadway, for it is to the credit of the National Coal Board that the roadways that they are now constructing are very different from those which they constructed, say, eight or nine years ago. It may be that the roadway which has been newly constructed as an alternative will be better than the one which is displaced.
I understand that before a footpath or roadway can be diverted permanently, a proposal must be submitted to the quarter sessions. I am wondering whether we must go through what we in Lancashire call "all that paraphernalia," or whether, immediately the opencast coal operations on a site have finished, the National Coal Board will do away with that roadway and restore the original one, which in many instances will have been there for centuries. These roadways are by no means new. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that at an earlier stage I mentioned one, and I was taken aback when Members on his own side of the Committee did not know what a "dingle" was. The footpath in question has not yet been restored. That is my concern.
It is all very well for the Lords to put down these Amendments to help. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that these things will help us in the restoration of the original footpaths,


but in the districts concerned those responsible for the restoration of footpaths which have been temporarily closed because of opencast operations are refusing to restore them. It may be that they are being awkward and stupid, but the footpath to which I referred on 11th March has not yet been restored.
It is useless for us here to talk about what the N.C.B. and the regional office are prepared to do. Unless there is an enforcement order upon these people, they will not do it. They should apply commonsense and reason. They have taken the footpaths from the people in the villages and have put something in their place for the time being, but when they have finished with their opencast mining operations they say—

Mr. J. T. Price: They could not care.

Mr. Brown: I quite agree. They are apathetic, indifferent and, to a degree, selfish in outlook. Little consideration is given to the people who for two, three or four years have been debarred from using the footpath which they and their families before them have used.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary again, as I did on the previous Amendment, that at least somebody in authority, either in Hobart House, at Millbank, or wherever it may be, should have power to say to the Coal Board or to the contractors, if they are responsible, "Now, you are finished. This roadway is of no further use to you for the transportation of opencast coal to the depositing station. Now that you have finished, restore the original footpath to the people whom you have debarred from using it whilst you have been carrying out opencast coal operations."
4.45 p.m.
I must speak very strongly on this. I feel, and the people in my village and in my constituency feel, that hitherto no attempt has been made either to restore footpaths to their original condition or to do away with the temporary footpath which has been substituted. We have reached the stage when one Britisher should not be awkward with another and when these people should attempt to be amenable, reasonable and tolerable and try to give some degree of contentment to those who have been debarred from

using the footpath which they have had for many years.

Sir I. Horobin: The short answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is that his question does not arise on these Amendments. Whether the provisions in the Bill are now as strong as he and I would like to ensure that the old permanent dedicated right of way is restored does not arise on this Amendment. We have been into that matter carefully, and I hope we have made it right. All that these Amendments deal with is what happens to any temporary right of way.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) was quite right. We are discussing here the narrow point whether the Coal Board is to be saddled with another dedicated right of way simply because in pursuing its operations it had, very properly, to provide temporarily an alternative road for the inhabitants. That is the whole point. The question of restoration, how quickly it is done, how certain it is and the quality of the permanent right of way, does not arise here. I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Ince is satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill, but it does not arise at this stage and I should be out of order to pursue it. All that we are doing in the present Amendments is preventing the Coal Board from being saddled with an extremely cumbrous piece of machinery by which there may be two rights of way instead of one.
I hope that the House will feel that we are doing a sensible thing in enabling the Coal Board to give a temporary right, as it must do, but then to be able to get rid of it as soon as—and the sooner the better—it restores the original permanent dedicated right of way.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 18, line 26, leave out from "alternative" to end of line 28 and insert:
way will be made available by the Board (whether on land comprised in the authorisation or on other land) for use by the public during the period for which the order remains in force.

In line 31, leave out "the provision of that alternative right of way" and insert:
making that alternative way so available, or in permitting it to be used by the public,".

In line 43, leave out from "then" to end of line 3 on page 19, and insert:
in the application to that order of subsection (5) of section five of this Act, the authorised purposes shall be taken to include the purpose of making an alternative way available for use by the public on land comprised in the order, and the right exercisable in accordance with that subsection, as against all persons directly concerned, shall include the right to permit the public to use any way so made available.

In page 19, line 4, leave out from "land" to "is" in line 5, and insert:
on which the alternative way is to be made available.

Clause 16.—(ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF DRAINAGE OR WATER SUPPLY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 32, at end insert:
(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising any interference with the exercise of a public right of way, or any contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act).

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment deals with a small point. It is to make clear that the compulsory purchases under Clause 16 of a right to discharge water on to land does not relieve the Board from complying with the general law and, in particular, with the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. There are a number of Amendments of this type. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides would wish to ensure that none of the compulsory rights orders overrides the protections for the public such as the prevention of pollution. The Amendment makes certain that the Board still has to comply with Acts such as the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 26, line 21, after "out" insert:
(over and above the ordinary maintenance and use of the land).

Clause 23.—(COMPENSATION BY REFERENCE TO THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE HOLDING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 32, leave out "timber felling contract"

and insert "order conferring working rights".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another of the Amendments dealing with timber felling, which it assimilates to easements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF FORCED SALES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 3, leave out "five" and insert "ten".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was inserted in another place at the request of the National Coal Board. Nobody else is concerned. It does not take away any rights from anybody else, but the Board has come to the conclusion that five days is too short a time for it to inspect property which is to be sold and it prefers a period of ten days. The Amendment does not damnify anybody else and we feel that we should agree with the Board in its request.

Mr. Neal: I wonder whether this Amendment is as innocuous as the Parliamentary Secretary has made out. When forced sales are taking place the equipment and implements that are being disposed of are often difficult to sell. The surrounding farmers are probably in possession of the same equipment as that which the unfortunate farmer whose land is to be occupied for opencast mining has to dispose of. They might, at times, find difficulty in finding a customer for some of the things. There might sometimes be hardship for a farmer if he has to give ten days' notice, whereas if he gave five days' notice he might find a customer for the sale of his goods.

Sir I. Horobin: I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Board has to pay compensation, and the compensation would be increased if, in fact, any damage had been done by the loss of a particularly convenient opportunity of sale. Therefore, the person selling cannot be damnified. It is only that the National Coal Board, which has quite a lot of things to do, may not always be


in a position within the short period of five days to inspect a particular set of implements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF EASEMENTS AND SIMILAR RIGHTS.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 37, line 24, after "land" insert:
comprised in the order, over which the easement or right is exercisable".

In line 29, leave out "in question" and insert:
to which the benefit of the easement or right is annexed".

Clause 33.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF MINERALS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 20, after "lease" insert:
or order conferring working rights.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another of the series of Amendments, to which I have already referred, dealing with the right to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION IN SPECIAL CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 39, after "thirty-one" insert:
or subsection (2) of section thirty-two.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the next one to page 41, line 24, are purely technical. They deal with when the payment of compensation under Clause 32, dealing with injurious affection, becomes due. They are purely machinery.

Mr. MacDermot: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for taking the opportunity to bring this Amendment forward in an acceptable form. It is a rather modest Amendment, for which I think I can claim some pride of paternity. There was an attempt made in the Committee, but the Minister had no difficulty in shooting down the claim. He produced a second version on Report, which I criticised, and that criticism has

apparently been accepted, so that I think we can all agree that the point is now adequately covered.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35.—(TIME WHEN COMPENSATION ACCRUES DUE.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 41, line 24, at end insert—
(d) under subsection (4) of section thirty-two of this Act, or".

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 33, leave out from "Act" to end of line 36 and insert:
in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is an Amendment of which I think both the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and ourselves can claim joint paternity. It provides, together with the next Amendment to line 47, that compensation in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due when the transfer of the property actually takes place. I think that both sides of the House will agree that this is an improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 41, line 47, at end, insert:
(9) In this section 'quarterly payments' means payments calculated by reference to the usual quarter days and 'effective date', in relation to a sale, means the date on which the property sold, becomes the property of the purchaser.

Clause 36.—(RECORD OF CONDITION OF LAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 36, leave out from beginning to "every" and insert "serve on".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the said Amendment.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave at an earlier stage in response to some observations from hon. Members opposite to require that records should be served under cover of the notice given in a prescribed form. I hope it will be acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 42, line 37, at end insert:
a notice in the prescribed form together with a copy of the record".

Clause 37.—(CONSEQUENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AND IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 37, after "leases" insert:
or orders conferring working rights".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another of the series of Amendments dealing with rights to work minerals.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40.—(CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 33, at end insert:
(4) References in this section to compensation under this Act do not include any compensation payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section thirteen or section sixteen of this Act, or any sum payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section forty-five of this Act.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is really a drafting Amendment, which deals with the method of claiming compensation under the Bill. Its effect is that it will not apply to claims for compensation under certain provisions of other Acts, which are applied by the Bill. These will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Acts in question. We do not think it right that the complicated and somewhat novel procedure in this Bill should override provisions already laid down in other Acts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42.— [SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROPERTY HELD FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.]

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 48, line 4, at end insert:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any compensation payable by virtue of section twenty-two of this Act.

In line 23, leave out from "(b)" to "by" in line 25, and insert:

by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him.

Clause 43.— [PROVISIONS AS TO MORTGAGED LAND AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES.]

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 14 at end insert:
(3) Where under subsection (2) of section thirty-two of this Act a person is entitled to compensation as the owner of any land, and his interest in that land is subject to a mortgage and the mortgagee is, to the extent of that interest, in possession of the land or of the rents and profits thereof, the compensation shall be paid by the Board to the mortgagee, and shall be paid or applied by him as mentioned in the last preceding subsection.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This also arises on Clause 32, dealing with injurious affection, and simply provides that when a mortgagee is in possession of land, the annual compensation will be payable to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 16, leave out "other than any annual compensation" and insert:
not being annual compensation or compensation under section twenty-two of this Act

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the next Amendment, to line 29, are designed to make it clear that the cost of works compensation under Clause 22, when land is subject to a mortgage, shall be payable to the person who carried out the works and not the mortgagee. That is obviously fair.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 49, line 29, leave out from "compensation" to "would" in line 30 and insert:
falling within subsection (3) of this section".

In line 34, leave out from beginning to "by" in line 36 and insert:
by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him.

Lords Amendment: In line 40, at end insert:
(5) Where any compensation falling within subsection (3) of this section is payable in right of an interest in land which is subject to a settlement, or is otherwise held in such a manner that the person entitled to that interest would not be competent to give an effective discharge for the proceeds of a sale thereof, that compensation shall be paid by the Board to the person who would be competent to give such a discharge.
(6) In his section 'annual compensation' means any such compensation as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of this Act.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment defining the person to whom terminal compensation shall be paid in the case of settled land.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 55, line 4, leave out "includes any interest in land" and insert:
in relation to any land, includes any interest in or right over that land (including any such right inuring for the benefit of the public or of a section thereof).

After Amendment last inserted, insert:
'land' includes land covered by water

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 8, leave out "other natural" and insert "similar"

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the new subsection (6) of this Clause, which we shall come to shortly, are designed to meet a point raised by those interested in minerals. It appears that there is a possibility that the definition of minerals in the Bill would not cover minerals in waste heaps. It is obviously the intention of the Bill that they should be so covered, and we want to avoid any possibility of doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 29, at end insert:
'order conferring working rights' means an order made under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.

5.0 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another of the Amendments dealing with rights to work minerals, to which I have already referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 43, at end insert:
'restoration', in relation to land, includes rehabilitation, and 'restore' shall be construed accordingly;

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This was an Amendment inserted in another place because it was felt that it should be made plain in the Bill itself that restoration includes rehabilitation of land. It is purely for greater certainty.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 56, leave out lines 16 to 20.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment merely removes the definition of "timber felling contracts". I have already explained that, now we are putting them under easements, this is no longer necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 33, leave out from "means" to end of line 39 and insert:
any of the following rights, that is to say, any right to take game or fish or other sporting right exercisable in respect of that land, any right to fell and remove trees standing thereon, any right to take timber or other wood, water, turf or other materials therefrom, any right to work minerals thereon (otherwise than by virtue of a mining lease or of an order conferring working rights), and any right to depasture cattle or other animals thereon, except any such sporting or other right which—

(a) subsists only as a right incidental to the ownership of the land in question, or to some other interest therein, or to a right to occupy that land, or
(b) is exercisable by virtue of a licence granted otherwise than for valuable consideration;

and any right over land which constitutes an easement or similar right in relation thereto, if apart from this subsection it would not constitute an interest in that land, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as constituting an interest therein.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is more of an operative Amendment. In the first place, this definition brings in certain sporting rights, mainly in Scotland, I understand, which do not themselves constitute an interest in land and which were, therefore, previously excluded. It is obviously right that they should be included. Secondly, it is the operative Amendment dealing with timber felling contracts, which assimilates them to easements.

Mr. J. T. Price: This may be a formal matter, but, if for no more than curiosity on my part, I should like to have a little more information about where grouse moors and coal mining rights might go hand in hand. This is just the sort of thing which their Lordships would poke into a Bill like this. To allow it to go by unnoticed would be unworthy of this House.
I have enjoyed many days walking over grouse moors, where I was not in pursuit of game but was enjoying fresh air in certain wild parts of the country where I have always claimed the right to go, whether it is legal or not. Perhaps that is a rather doubtful thing for a Member of this House to say, but this has been my way of looking at these matters. Since we are asked now formally to endorse this recommendation, I should like to know what grouse moors some noble Lord had in mind which might be included within terms of compensation when these highly involved and technical matters are being decided.

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that the matter is of world-shaking importance.

Mr. Price: Neither do I.

Sir I. Horobin: The point is simply that, not for the first time, the law of England differs from the law of Scotland in this matter. Certain rights in England, because they would constitute, technically, an interest in land, would attract compensation. Precisely the same rights in Scotland, because they do not technically constitute an interest in land, would not attract compensation. I am sure that every Scottish Member would rise in wrath if we did not put the matter right. We have, on this occasion, simply attempted to say that precisely the same people should be compensated in the same way for the same things, on which

ever side of the Border they live. This seems perfectly reasonable.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert:
(4) For the purposes of any provision of this Act, in so far as it refers to the state or condition in which land was at a time specified in that provision, regard shall be had to all matters relevant to the state or condition of the land at that time, including (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) the characteristics of the soil (whether on or below the surface), the presence of any minerals in or under the land, the growth of trees, hedges or other vegetation thereon, and any buildings, structures, apparatus or other works which were on, in, under or over the land at that time; and any reference in any provision of this Act to the state or condition in which land would have been, or might reasonably have been expected to be, in circumstances specified in that provision, shall be construed accordingly.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is put down simply for clarification, to make sure that in those places where compensation is related to the state or condition of the land minerals are included. We think that that was the case anyway, in fact, but, as the point was raised in another place, this Amendment was put down for greater assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 5, at end insert:
(6) For the purposes of this Act waste heaps and other deposits resulting from the working of minerals shall be taken to form part of the land on which they are situated, if apart from this subsection they would not be taken to form part thereof, and any reference in this Act to the working of minerals on, in or under land, or to underground or surface working, shall be construed accordingly.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is the Amendment I have already referred to, which deals with waste heaps and other deposits of minerals.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 27, leave out from "operation" to end of line 28, and insert:
on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is made necessary as a result of the co-operation of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. When this complicated Measure came in, we were not sure that we should get it before the Recess. Now that it looks as if we shall get it this afternoon, it has been thought better to propose this Amendment, partly to give a little more time so that it should not come into operation in the middle of the holidays, and partly for convenience, to have it on quarter day so as to make the mechanics of it more simple for accountancy purposes. It has no other effect but to delay slightly what would at present be the date for the operation of the Bill, although it will still be earlier than we had thought when we first introduced it.

Question put and agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(PROVISTONS AS TO COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 68, line 1, leave out the Third Schedule and insert new Schedule.

1. In this Schedule—

"compensation" means compensation under section twenty-two of this Act;
"former use", in relation to any land, means the use for which it was used immediately before the operative date of the order in question;
"proper cost", in relation to any work, means such cost as is reasonable, having regard to the prices of materials and rates of remuneration for services current at the time when the work is carried out;
"the Tribunal" means the Lands Tribunal.

2.—(1) The Board shall not be required to pay compensation in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out any work unless

(a) not less than the prescribed length of time before the work was begun, the person incurring the expenses gave to the Board, in the prescribed manner, notice in writing containing adequate particulars of the work, together with a statement of the time when it was proposed to carry out the work and an estimate of the cost of the work, and
(b) at all reasonable times after the service of that notice, that person afforded to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the land to which the notice related, in so far as he was in a position to afford such facilities.

(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule "the applicant", in relation to a notice under this paragraph, means the person who gave that notice.

3. Where a notice has been given under the last preceding paragraph, the Board, within the prescribed time after the giving of that notice, may serve on the applicant a counter-notice, stating—

(a) that the Board object to the work specified in the applicant's notice, or to such one or more items thereof as may be specified in the counter-notice, and
(b) that they object thereto on such one or more grounds as may be specified in the counter-notice, being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the next following, paragraph.

4. Subject to the next following paragraph, the said grounds, in relation to any work specified in a notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, are the following, that is to say,—

(a) that the work could not reasonably be regarded as work falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act;
(b) that the work is likely to be ineffective, or is by its nature unsuitable to the land in question, or is proposed to be carried out in an unsuitable way;
(c) that the estimated cost of the work is grossly disproportionate to any prospective increase attributable to the work in the value of the land;
(d) that the work, in a case where the former use of the land in question was agricultural, would not be appropriate to the use of that land for agriculture, or, in any other case, would not be appropriate to the use of that land for its former use;
(e) that the work would not be required but for dilapidation, deterioration or damage which has occurred since the end of the period of occupation and is attributable to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land;
(f) that the work, if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would be premature;
(g) that the work, if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would not have been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation, or within a reasonable time after that opportunity arose.

5.—(1) In so far as a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule (in this paragraph referred to as "the current notice") specifies any work (in this paragraph referred to as "the new work") in a case where the applicant has previously given one or more notices under that paragraph specifying similar work which he proposed to carry out in respect of the same land, the last preceding paragraph shall apply in relation to the new work with the substitution, for sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph, of the following sub-paragraph (in this paragraph referred to as "the substituted subparagraph (c)")—
(c) that the aggregate cost of that work and of all relevant work specified previous notices relating to the same land is grossly disproportionate to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work in the value of the land".

(2) In the substituted sub-paragraph (c) the reference to the aggregate cost of the new work and of all other relevant work specified in previous notices relating to the same land is a reference to the aggregate of—

(a) the estimated cost of the new work, and
(b) the estimated cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant which is still outstanding on the relevant date, and
(c) the proper cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the relevant date or is still outstanding an that date.

(3) In the substituted sub-paragraph (c) the reference to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work as is therein mentioned in the value of the land is a reference to the aggregate of—

(a) the prospective increase in that value attributable to the new work, and
(b) the prospective increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant which is still outstanding on the relevant date, and
(c) the increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the relevant date or is still outstanding on that date.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph

(a) a previous notice specifying similar work shall be taken to be outstanding on the relevant date if—

(i) such a notice has been given before the relevant date and has not been withdrawn, and
(ii) either the Board have not before that date served a counter-notice objecting to that work, or, if they have served such a counter-notice, that abjection has before that date been withdrawn or determined by the Tribunal not to be well-founded, and
(iii) no claim for compensation has before the relevant date been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work;

(b) a claim for compensation in respect of any work shall be taken to have been allowed before the relevant date if before that date—

(i) a claim for compensation has been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and
(ii) it has been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses, whether the amount of compensation so agreed or determined to be payable was the amount claimed or a different amount;

(c) a claim for compensation in respect of any work shall be taken to be still outstanding on the relevant date if at that date—

(i) a claim for compensation has been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and

(ii) that claim has not been withdrawn, and it has not been determined by the Tribunal that no compensation is payable in respect of those expenses, but
(iii) it has not been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses.

(5) In this paragraph, "similar work", in relation to the new work, means work directed to the same aspect of restoration as the new work; "previous notice" in relation to the current notice, means a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule before the date on which the current notice was given; and "the relevant date" in relation to the current notice, means the date on which the Board serve a counter-notice objecting to the new work, or the date on which the time for serving such a counter-notice expires, whichever is the earlier.

(6) In the following provisions of this Schedule (except where the contrary is expressly provided) any reference to subparagraph (c) of the last preceding paragraph, in relation to work to which that paragraph applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, shall be construed as a reference to the substituted sub-paragraph (c), and any reference in this Schedule to the grounds mentioned in the last preceding paragraph shall be construed accordingly.

6. For the purpose of determining whether an objection on the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule is well-founded, the estimated cost of any work shall be taken to be such amount as may be agreed, or determined by the Tribunal, to be a fair estimate of the cost of the work, whether that amount is equal to, or greater or less than, the estimated cost of the work as stated in the applicant's notice specifying that work.

7.—(1) In sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the reference to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) In relation to agricultural land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to fulfil his responsibilities to farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.

(3) In relation to any other land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to deal with the land in a proper and due course of management, and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to maintain and use the land in a reasonable manner.

(4) Sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947 (which prescribe tests for determining good estate management and good husbandry) shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.

(5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for the reference to sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947, there shall be substituted a reference to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1958.

8. Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the applicant has incurred expenses in carrying out any of the work specified in that notice, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses,—

(a) if the Board have not served a counter-notice under paragraph 3 of this Schedule in respect of that notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule;
(b) if the Board have served such a counter-notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule, except in so far as the claim relates to items which were specified in the counter-notice and the objection is on grounds which were so specified in relation to those items.

9.—(1) Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice objecting to the work specified in the notice, or to one or more items thereof, the applicant, before beginning to carry out any item to which such an objection relates, may require the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal.

(2) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is not well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates and claims compensation in respect of those expenses, then (in addition to any grounds on which the Board are precluded by the last preceding paragraph from objecting to that claim) the Board shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds which were the grounds of that objection.

(3) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses,—

(a) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in any of subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those expenses;
(b) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (f) of the said paragraph 4, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those expenses by virtue of the notice referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, but without prejudice to the service of a further notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule in respect of the work in question;
(c) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (g) of the said paragraph 4, the expenses shall be disallowed by virtue of this sub-paragraph in so far as (but no further than) they were

greater than they would have been if the work to which the objection related had been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation.

10.—(1) If, in a case where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice objecting to the work specified in the notice, Or to one or more items thereof,—

(a) the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out work to which the objection relates, without having required the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses;
(b) on a reference to the Tribunal with respect to that claim the Board maintain the objection; and
(c) on that reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is well-founded,

the provisions of heads (a) to (c) of subparagraph (3) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply (subject to the following provisions of this paragraph) as they appy in the circumstances mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(2) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule (otherwise than in a case falling within paragraph 5 of this Schedule) so much of the preceding sub-paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said sub-paragraph (c), the reference to the estimated cost of the work were a reference to the proper cost of the work.

(3) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in the substituted sub-paragraph (c), within the meaning of paragraph 5 of this Schedule, so much of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said paragraph 5, any reference to the relevant date were a reference to the date on which the question whether compensation is payable in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out the new work (within the meaning of that paragraph) falls to be determined by the Tribunal, and the objection had been formulated accordingly.

11.—(1) Subject to the next following subparagraph, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be treated as having been reasonably incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act, if the work was begun more than fifteen years after the end of the period of occupation.

(2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply to any work required for making good damage caused by the settlement of soil replaced in the course of restoring the land or any other damage to the land caused by subsidence which is attributable to anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in question.

12. Where it is shown that the expenses incurred in carrying out any work exceeded the


proper cost of the work, any claim for compensation in respect of those expenses shall (without prejudice to any other grounds on which the claim may be liable to be disallowed, wholly or in part) be disallowed to the extent of the excess.

13.—(1) Except in so far as objection is made to any work on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to any such objection, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be disallowed (wholly or in part) on the grounds that the proper cost of that work (or of that work together with any other work) is greater than any Increase attributable thereto in the value of the land.

(2) Subject to the preceding sub-paragraph, nothing in the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as precluding the Board from maintaining any objection to a claim for compensation, in so far as the objection is on any grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I feel that I should apologise to the House, not for the first time, for introducing such a colossal Amendment at this very late stage. I did take the precaution of getting in touch with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friends in order to reassure them, if I could, that there was no secret or hidden intention in it. It is very long, but I think that it deals with matters which are common ground.
In the first place, the Amendment limits the Board's liability in time. We devoted a great deal of consideration in Committee to this very difficult matter. The whole object of cost of works compensation was to ensure that the money was paid when the work was done, and that all the work necessary was done. We were all agreed about that. On the other hand, the National Coal Board said, with much reason, that this was a continuing liability which might go on almost for ever, involving, perhaps, very small sums for extra application of fertiliser or whatever it might be. The Board said that it would be put to great expense and inconvenience if, perhaps twenty years later, it still had to pay out a few shillings for compensation.
We have put a great deal of work into it. It was very difficult to find the right way out of the difficulty, but I think we have now reached a reasonable compromise in this Amendment. What it

boils down to is that there will be, as it were, a guillotine which will fall after fifteen years, except in cases of compensation for subsidence. If subsidence takes place after deep mining, there is a continuing liability, and there seems to be no reason that the Board should not, however long afterwards, pay for subsidence which is clearly identifiable when there is no question of who is responsible for it. It is only fair that that should be so. For all other matters, there will come an end after fifteen years. Of course, the owner will obtain a rather larger sum in compensation, assessed by the valuer, when the Board gives up occupation, because any small sums which would hitherto have had to be paid to him will no longer be paid. The owner will not be damnified, therefore, but the Board will be saved a very great deal of more or less unknown liability.
The second point dealt with in the Amendment arises from an undertaking given at an earlier stage, and here I am sure that we shall have the agreement of hon. and right hon. Members opposite who raised the matter very strongly. We must, if we can, find some way to check the reasonableness of procedures which are intended to be carried out under a cost of works arrangement before they are started. This is to the advantage of both sides. We have found here, I think, a fairly ingenious and satisfactory way of dealing with that. When the Board receives a notice, it can send a counter-notice to say that it considers that the works proposed are unreasonable. If the parties cannot come to agreement, they may go to the Lands Tribunal. I am sure that this arrangement will be much more satisfactory to the Coal Board and to the owner, than leaving things as they were, when the owner went and did some work, having no means of knowing whether the work would ultimately be found eligible for compensation.
The third point dealt with is this. I did say that we would go carefully through the drafting of the old Third Schedule and make sure that there were no loopholes to enable quite unreasonable works to be done at the Board's expense. We have dealt with that in two respects. First, the Board can object now on the ground that certain works are premature. If a man really insists on doing some drainage works, and the Board simply


says that it is a complete waste of money because what is done is bound to be broken in six months' time, that would be a sufficient ground for the Board to make objection. In all these cases, of course, the parties can go to the Tribunal if they cannot agree. We have then put in something which, I hope, will be a safeguard—it is really a matter of common sense—to provide that the Board can object if the expenditure is grossly disproportionate to the estimated additional value of the land. Again, the Lands Tribunal will be able to decide what expense is grossly disproportionate. We have always insisted that cost of works must not be limited to the amount that they add to the value of the land. That has been common ground between us from the start. Nevertheless, it may be reasonable to spend a certain amount in restoration and rehabilitation which will increase the value of the land. There must be some protection to ensure that ridiculous sums of money are not spent in making practically no improvement to the land at all.
I think that that explanation, broadly speaking, deals with the matters in this long Schedule, but, having to make three main sets of improvements, it was simpler to take out the whole of the old Schedule and insert a new one rather than table a series of Amendments. With that explanation, I hope the House will feel that the new Schedule is an improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Neal: There is a good deal in this long Schedule upon which I would not attempt to comment. The legal language is very complicated. Since we are in felicitous mood, however, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary again for having included paragraph 11 in the Schedule. I think it was apt when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the guillotine falling at fifteen years, but there are exceptional circumstances where settlement takes place. Settlement takes place in deep mining when land has been restored long after the Coal Board has left the site. I am sure the farming community, in particular, will be apprised of the value of the Schedule in enabling them to claim after that period has expired.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I should like to ask the

Parliamentary Secretary whether he consulted the interests concerned before finally deciding upon the form of the new Schedule. I am bound to say that I regard the Schedule as a great improvement upon the Schedule which has been excluded. I like the paragraph in the new Schedule which covers the fifteen-year period.
The only other point upon which I should like some assurance is this. Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that any settlement of the land after fifteen years—and I imagine that tile drainage will be most affected—will be covered by paragraph 11 (2)? If the hon. Gentleman can give me some satisfaction on that point, I shall be grateful.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that the hon. Gentleman need have no fear. The object of the new Schedule is to take away what would have been an unlimited liability, but if subsidence takes place, and always assuming that it is proved to be due to opencast mining operations, the liability to do cost of works restoration remains.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: I also should like to welcome the new Schedule which goes a long way to meet the major criticisms which we had to offer in Committee on the substantial changes which were made by the Government to the compensation provisions of the Bill. The new Schedule does not go all of the way, but it certainly goes a good deal of the way.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the new Schedule is inordinately long. I confess that I scrutinised it carefully to see whether I could find a way in which it could be shortened, but I found myself completely defeated. It is involved and very complicated. I think, however, that the Minister was justified in claiming that the provisions that have been put forward are ingenious and satisfactory. They are undoubtedly ingenious and I think that they cover all the reasonable contingencies in which the Board may want to lodge a precautionary objection to anything which the owner proposes to do by way of further cost of works. There is nothing to stop him doing the works, but he is put on notice and warned that if the objections which the Board might put forward are well founded he may not recover from the Board all, or in some cases any, of the cost of further works. If the owner does not like that, he can


go to the Tribunal and get the matter cleared up before incurring the risk and expense of doing all those works. That is the major point which has been met.
There is one point of detail upon which I should be grateful for a little clarification from the Minister. I conceive that one of the most frequent sources of dispute between the Board and the owner will be when the owner sends his estimate of the cost of works that he is proposing to do and the Board says, "We have no objection to the works as such, but we think that your estimate is excessive". This point is referred to in line 22 of the Schedule. As I read the Schedule, that is not one of the circumstances provided for in the sense that the Board can issue a warning at that stage. I had thought of trying to draft an Amendment to cover the point, but the objection which would be raised by the Government—and it seems to me to be a formidable objection—is that it is impossible to litigate in advance what would be the proper cost of doing the work, Labour costs and prices of materials may change.
The point that I raise is this. The provision in line 22 which requires the owner before he does the works to let the Board have an estimate of the cost of work does not seem to be followed up anywhere in the Schedule. I can find no further reference to it. Am I right in thinking that once the estimate has been sent to the Board it can be buried and lost in the files of the Board and nothing further need happen about it at all? That would not be very satisfactory; and, as a matter of practice, if the Board does think that an estimate is excessive, will it give, as it were, unofficial warning and notice to the owner of that fact so that he will not be taken by surprise? Naturally, the owner would feel aggrieved if five years later the Board says, "We are prepared to pay compensation, but we think that your estimate is excessive and the cost of works done is excessive and we are prepared to pay only 80 per cent. of the sum that you are claiming."
I agree that this is not a matter which can be litigated in advance, but I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that it is the intention of the Board to make known its mind when it receives an owner's estimate of the cost of works.

Sir I. Horobin: I do not want to be dogmatic in my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot). As I understand it, the original notice would contain an estimate. If the Board serves a counter-notice, as it can, saying, "This estimate is grossly disproportionate", that could be dealt with, but the Board will not pay until after the work has been done and it will pay only a proper amount. The Board would not pay upon receiving the estimate. The owner may say, "I propose to do certain works", and the Board would be perfectly entitled to say, "We think those works are unreasonable. Take it to the Tribunal." It would be open to the Board to say, "These works may have been all right, or at least the Tribunal held that they were, though we did not agree, but we are now going to say that we think you spent two or three times the proper cost." That, again, would leave it open either for the man to say, "I agree that it turned out like that, but I was anxious to get it done and I will not get all the compensation," or the matter can be referred to the Tribunal which will decide the proper cost. When the Tribunal decides the cost the estimate is irrelevant.

Mr. MacDermot: That does not meet my point. Perhaps I may put it a little clearer to the hon. Gentleman. The provision in paragraph 4 (c) for the Board giving a counter-notice
that the estimated cost of the work is grossly disproportionate to any prospective increase attributable to the work in the value of the land
is not the estimate of the cost of the work in line 22. It is quite a different thing. The estimate of the cost of the work in line 48 is defined in paragraph 6. It is a notional figure. I am dealing with the man's actual estimate. Even if the work is perfectly reasonable and its proper cost is not
grossly disproportionate to any increase … in the value of the land
he may have obtained an estimate to do that work which is quite excessive. The cost might be unreasonably excessive.
All I am suggesting is that as a matter of procedure if, when the Board receives the owner's estimate, it feels that it is an excessive estimate and is likely to lead, if the works are carried out on the basis of that estimate, to a dispute as


to what is the proper cost, the Board should, as a matter of practice, give immediate warning of that fact to the owner.

Sir I. Horobin: I think the hon. Gentleman is right that, in fact, as a matter of administration it would be sensible for the Board to issue a formal warning of that kind. All I was concerned to show is that the Board would not be damnified by the fact of the estimate. It would be concerned with whether the work was O.K. and, when done, whether the cost was proper. I agree that it might be that the Board would be wise to say, "If you are doing this work, we do not object, but we informally advise you that this seems a quite absurd estimate for doing the work and, in due course, we may well challenge you." I think that is a matter best left for informal action between the two parties.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED MATTERS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 70, line 22, leave out "sheep on high ground" and insert:
hill sheep on hill land.

Fifth Schedule.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF MINERALS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 3, at end insert:
or order conferring working rights

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next Amendment are, again, two of the series of Amendments dealing with the rights to work minerals.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 6, after "lease" insert "or order".

Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 17, after "using" insert "treating, converting"

Sir I. Horrobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking on a small point. We desire to make

sure that the definition of rights and facilities in paragraph 1 (3) of the Fifth Schedule covers the processing of minerals.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 25, at end insert:
(5) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to an order conferring working rights as they have effect in relation to a mining lease.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another of the Amendments dealing with the rights to work minerals.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert:
(4) If the entirety of the holding consists of land to which this Schedule applies, no compensation under section twenty-three of this Act shall be payable in respect of the holding.
(5) If only part of the holding consists of land to which this Schedule applies,—

(a) section twenty-three of this Act shall have effect in relation to the holding, but
(b) subsections (2) and (4) of that section shall apply as if that land did not form part of the holding, and any reference in that section to values computed in accordance with any of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) thereof shall be construed accordingly."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment designed to eliminate a double payment. It deals with a person, other than a mineral operator, who is receiving compensation under the special Fifth Schedule provisions, and we have to make certain that he does not also obtain terminal compensation under the general provisions of the Bill which apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Sixth Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION PROVISIONS TO SPECIAL CASES.)

Lords Amendments: In page 79, line 18, leave out from "compensation" to end of line 24 and insert:
is not the person who was entitled to occupy the holding on the operative date (in this paragraph referred to as 'the original occupier')


and is not a person who has become entitled to the relevant interest in the holding—

(a) on or after the death of the original occupier, in accordance with the disposition of the original occupier's estate effected by his will, or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, or
(b) under an agreement which was made for valuable consideration by the person entitled to the compensation and was in force immediately before the operative date, or under a disposition creating or transferring the relevant interest in the holding in pursuance of such an agreement."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the following Amendment go together and merely correct some technical defects in the wording relating to loss of profits compensation. There is no question of substance in them. They merely make the technical provisions rather clearer.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 27, at end insert:
(2) In this paragraph 'the relevant interest', in relation to a person entitled to compensation for any year in respect of a holding, means the interest in or right over the holding by virtue of which he is entitled to that compensation; 'will' includes a codicil; and 'disposition', where the reference is to a disposition creating or transferring an interest, does not include any provision contained in a will, but, with that exception, includes any conveyance, assignment, lease or other assurance.

Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 31, at end insert:
("(2) For the purposes of this paragraph no account shall be taken of any opportunities of which the person in question has not availed himself (notwithstanding that they were opportunities of the kind described in the preceding sub-paragraph) in so far as they would have involved his engaging (whether as an employed person or otherwise) in a substantially different occupation from that in which he was engaged during the period preceding the operative date of the order.
(3) Paragraph (a) of subsection (8) of section nineteen of this Act, and the last preceding paragraph, shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that section.")

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a more important Amendment which I think will be generally acceptable. It deals with the thorny subject of litigation. It was felt in another place, and, indeed, the point was raised in

general terms in Committee, that while we should follow the general law that a man who is receiving compensation should mitigate the loss as far as possible, it would be quite unreasonable that farmers should be told, "You ought to have taken up employment in a factory or something of that kind," and, therefore, should lose some of their compensation. This Amendment will protect them against that. Where they have mitigated the loss either by interest on compensation received or by taking another farming job, it is, of course, reasonable under the general provisions of the Bill that their compensation should be mitigated.
This Amendment protects a man from being told, in effect, "You are a farmer. Your land has been taken and you ought to have become a waiter in Blackpool or something of that sort." I think most people would feel that this is a reasonable and proper safeguard to people who in any case have suffered very extreme inconvenience in having their land taken. I do not think I need go into the exact details of it, but I think that the principle will be generally acceptable.

Mr. MacDermot: I confess that I do not share the Minister's enthusiasm for the Amendment. It is a departure from the accepted principles of compensation as they apply in a very wide sphere over many different kinds of Acts. It is a general principle of our law that for any kind of compensation which a person is to receive he has a duty, as the courts put it, to mitigate his damages. It applies in ordinary common law to persons claiming damage for personal injuries, in running-down accidents, as a result of motor accidents, or whatever it may be. It applies to the general law of compensation for compulsory purchase and in different spheres.
If the person suffers damage and is entitled to be indemnified for that damage it is always accepted that he must take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage. In any particular case it is for the court to decide, having regard to all the circumstances, whether a measure which would be open to the man to mitigate his damages is one which can reasonably be demanded of him. It has not been thought wise or necessary to try to define what would be a reasonable step or to exclude from consideration some possible


measures as being in all circumstances unreasonable.
It is that which this Amendment tries to do, and, I think unwisely. What it tries to say, and, indeed, does say, is that no account at all shall be taken in determining what reasonable use the person might make, in order to mitigate loss, of any opportunities available to him, but of which he does not avail himself if they involve him in engaging in a substantially different occupation.
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, to support his argument, gave some rather fanciful examples, for instance, that a farmer might be asked to go to work as a waiter at Blackpool. I do not imagine that in any circumstances any court would say that was reasonable. Let me give an example which may perhaps be a little nearer the point. I understand that what almost invariably happens when, because opencast coal operations come about, anyone in the locality loses his employment, is that he is able to obtain other employment at least as lucrative, if not more so, from the Coal Board in those opencast coal operations.
The ordinary agricultural labourer, who may be a tractor driver, for instance, if there is not other agricultural work available for him in the neighbourhood, will get work driving a bulldozer, or whatever the vehicle may be, for the Coal Board. Whether in any case in particular it would be reasonable to ask a farmer to do the same thing as his labourers would do, namely, obtain employment from the Board, is something which would have to be looked at in all the circumstances of the case.
Clearly, if one were dealing with an elderly man who had no mechanical skills and who would be out of his depth, as it were, in any employment which might be offered to him, or if that employment were to involve his working in any way which he would find highly objectionable and different from anything to which he had been accustomed all his life, knowing the general approach of the courts I feel quite confident that the courts would say, "We do not think it is reasonable to demand of him that he should accept that employment."
Another and a younger man, perhaps with a smallholding, who is unable to

continue his work as a result of opencast coal mining in the neighbourhood, may be offered a type of job well within his capacity. Is he to be entitled, as a result of this Lords Amendment, just to sit down and twiddle his thumbs and say, "No. I am not taking any work with the Coal Board, because that is substantially different employment from ordinary agricultural work. You are preventing me from earning my profit of £800 or £1,000 a year and you will pay me the full annual loss"? Is he just to sit at home and do nothing?
That is not an extreme, fanciful example. That would be quite possible because of this Lords Amendment. I feel that the people who supported the Amendment, who urged it and obtained it, were allowing their imaginations to run away with them in thinking that the courts or authorities would be much more unreasonable than in fact they will be in giving effect to the ordinary provisions about reasonableness in the law of mitigation, and I feel that this Lords Amendment might be taken advantage of in a way which, I feel sure, no one in this House would wish.

Sir I. Horobin: In, if I may say so, a cold-blooded, legal sense, there is an enormous amount to be said for what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has been putting to the House, but I think that in this case we have to be a little human. Let us take the actual situation he is putting. We are not dealing, as he says, with a labourer, but a farmer, an occupier. The Coal Board says to him, "We are compulsorily going to take away the place where you live, the place where your wife and children live. We are going to make life nearly intolerable for you for several years. But you can drive a tractor. We are not going to pay you much compensation because you can drive the tractor which is going to tear your farm to pieces."
In law that is a logical proceeding by the Board, and I am glad to have it from the hon. Member, but surely in this matter we can be a little human. I think that in these circumstances it would be pretty cruel to tell people, "I am not going to pay you any compensation, or not nearly as much, because you can help to do the damage to your land." Logically there is an enormous lot to be said for what the hon. Member says.
He is perfectly right, as always, in saying that this is the general law of the land, but many of us have felt that this opencast coal business is exceptional, and on balance, while, of course, for instance, the cash the man may have at the bank ought to be taken into account, we feel it would be unfair to the man to reduce the compensation we pay him for making his life a misery if he does not himself help to make his own life a misery. I think that the Lords Amendment should be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 36, after "any" insert "improvements carried out on".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the two following Lords Amendments all deal with the same point, which is quite a small one. They deal with tenant right to compensation and the question is whether that should be capital or income. For Income Tax purposes tenant right compensation is treated as annual income, and it therefore does not seem quite fair, as was provided in the Bill as originally drafted, to treat it as a capital payment when we work out mitigation of the annual loss to profits compensation. I think that if one branch, as it were, of the Government treats it as income another branch should not treat it as capital. I will not say that it does not occur. Anything is possible in tax law. However, I think most people will feel that this protection to the occupier is fair and equitable.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 36, after "holding" insert:
being improvements of a description specified in Part I or Part VI of the Fourth Schedule to this Act,".

In page 81, line 6, at end insert:
(3) In this paragraph any reference to Part I or Part VI of the Fourth Schedule to this Act includes a reference to that Part as varied by any order made under section twenty-six or section twenty-eight of this Act.

Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 32, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 33 and insert:
subsections (2) to (4) of section eighteen of this Act shall not apply, and for the purposes of that section, and for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section nineteen

of this Act and (where applicable) for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section nineteen, the annual value of the land for any year shall be determined".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Lords Amendment and the next two all deal with the same point. They all deal with the rather awkward question of land, such as building land, which is not normally let from year to year and therefore becomes difficult to calculate for compensation. We propose, under these Lords Amendments, to make regulations dealing with this special case. The Regulations originally were intended to be made on the basis that we just take out the existing provisions altogether and put in new ones for this class of land, but in doing the preliminary work of drafting the Regulations it has been found it can be done much more conveniently by incorporating a notional value for that purpose. The Regulations will in due course come before Parliament. These Lords Amendments enable that to be done. This is purely a technical point dealing with a special class of land which cannot come under the normal procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 36, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

In page 82, line 16, leave out "section seventeen or section eighteen" and insert:
any of, the provisions of sections seventeen to nineteen.

In line 17, leave out "section" and insert "provision".

Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 18, at end insert:
13.—(1) Where any land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies in relation to a compulsory rights order is—

(a) land which, immediately before the operative date of the order, was used for a purpose for which land would not normally be let from rear to year, or
(b) land in respect of which, immediately before the operative date, there was in force permission granted tinder Part III of the Act of 1947 for the land to be used for such a purpose,

subsection (3) of that section shall not apply, and for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section annual value shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this paragraph.


(2) Sub-paragraph (4) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is another which arises out of Clause 32 and deals with a point similar to that which we have just been discussing, namely, land which is not normally let from year to year. This is a purely machinery provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 83, and insert:

"Woodlands

14. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders in their application to land which, immediately before the operative date of such an order, or the date of entry thereunder, was used as woodlands, or as woodlands of a particular description specified in the regulations."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This merely gives power to the Minister to make Regulations dealing with compensation for woodlands. A number of questions have been raised about compensation for woodlands. They have been raised here and in another place.
They obviously do not fit very conveniently into the normal provisions. Woodlands take a long time to grow. Very elaborate provisions could have been put into the Bill. Indeed, some people have suggested that a lump payment should be made in respect of woodlands when the Board gives up possession, but it has been felt that the only way to make satisfactory provision for this special and rather awkward case is to deal with it by regulations. In drafting those regulations, careful consideration will be given to a number of points made both in this House and in another place. Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 84, line 27, at end insert:

"Restricted lettings, and easements and similar rights

18A. This paragraph applies to the following rights, that is to say,—

(a) any right conferred by a letting of land, or a licence to occupy land, in pursuance

of an agreement made (whether the agreement expressly so provides or not) in contemplation of the use of land only for grazing or mowing during some specified period of the year;
(b) any easement or similar right over land.

18B. For the purposes of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say, subsections (2) and (3) of section seventeen, subsection (2) of section twenty-one, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, and the provisions of subsection (3) of section seventeen as applied by subsection (2) of section twenty-nine, any right to which the last preceding paragraph applies shall be disregarded; and, in relation to any land which is subject to any such right, those provisions shall apply as if that right had not been conferred, reserved or otherwise acquired, as the case may be.

18C.—(1) Where in accordance with the provisions of section seventeen of this Act (as modified by the last preceding paragraph) any land constitutes a holding to which that section applies, and, during any year far which compensation is payable in respect of that holding by virtue of that section, any land comprised in the holding is subject to any right to which paragraph 18A of this Schedule applies, the provisions of the next following sub-paragraph shall have effect as to the assessment under section nineteen of this Act of profit or loss for that year in respect of that holding.

(2) Any profit or loss required to be so assessed under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, and (if the remainder of the holding referred to in subsection (3) of that section includes any of the land which is subject to the right in question) any profit or loss required to be so assessed for that year under subsection (3) of that section, shall be assessed on the basis of an occupation of the holding, or of the remainder of the holding, as the case may be,—

(a) subject to that right, in so far as it would (if the compulsory rights order had not been made) have been exercisable during the year in question in relation to land comprised in the holding, or in the remainder of the holding, as the case may be, but
(b) with the benefit of any rent which (if the order had not been made) would have been payable for that year in respect of the exercise of that right in relation to any such land, and
(c) in all other respects, on the terms and in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of that section, as the case may be.

(3) For the purposes of the last preceding subparagraph it shall be assumed that the manner and extent of the exercise of the right in question, during the year for which the profit or loss is required to be assessed, is such as it might reasonably have been expected to be during that year if the compulsory rights order had not been made.

(4) Where the preceding provisions of this paragraph have effect in relation to the assessment of compensation for any year in accordance with section nineteen of this Act, and in respect of the right in question, in so far as it relates to land comprised in the holding, any rent is payable for that year (notwithstanding the compulsory rights order) to the person entitled to that compensation, the amount of that compensation (calculated apart from this sub-paragraph) shall be reduced by the amount of that rent.

(5) In the preceding provisions of this paragraph any reference to section seventeen of this Act includes a reference to section twenty-nine of this Act, and any reference to section nineteen of this Act includes a reference to the provisions of that section as applied by section twenty-nine of this Act.

(6) In this paragraph "rent" includes any sums payable in respect of the exercise of a right to which paragraph 18A of this Schedule applies.

18D. Where the whole or part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order is subject to any such right as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 18A of this Schedule, and in any year in which that right subsists, being any such year as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act, the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order, the said subsection (2) shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies.

18E. Any agreement for the letting a land or the grant of a licence in respect of land, where, before the agreement was entered into, the letting or grant was approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the effect of certain lettings and licences to occupy agricultural land, but excepts lettings and licences approved by the said Minister from the operation of the section) shall be treated for the purposes of section seventeen of this Act as conferring a right to occupy the land to which the agreement relates, if apart from this paragraph it would not be treated as conferring such a right.

18F. Where the whole or part of a holding to which section seventeen of this Act applies consists of land occupied under a letting or licence approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948, and—

(a) by the agreement under which the land was let or the licence granted a right to use the land for specified purposes was reserved to the person letting the land or granting the licence, as the case may be;
(b) the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the compulsory rights order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order; and
(c) that right does not constitute an easement or similar right.


subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I am afraid that this is a rather long and complicated Amendment, though it deals with some fairly simple points. First of all, it eliminates the possibility of double payment of compensation. When land is considered for the purpose of paying annual compensation to an occupier, the valuation is made on the assumption that the holding is free from encumbrances. If somebody is entitled to an easement or a right over that part of the holding he gets compensation too. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that both are not paid for the same damage.
Secondly, part of the land may be let under a mowing or grazing licence. Under the Bill as drafted the whole of the annual compensation goes to the occupier and the licensee gets nothing. That does not seem fair. We have put that right and given the licensee his proper compensation. I understand, and I confess I merely take this from my advisers, that there are short-term agreements approved by the Minister of Agriculture in some of which the owner retains certain rights to use the land. It is fair if he loses those rights that he should be indemnified, and we have assimilated those rights so that they come under the general provision for compensation for damage to easements or similar rights. These points are exceptions but there are cases of genuine loss and we have attempted to ensure that fair compensation is paid.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 29, leave out from "to" to "year" in line 30 and insert:
so much of the annual value for that year, or of the amount in question assessed by reference to that year, as (on a rateable apportionment of that value or amount as between different parts of that year) is properly atributable to that part of that

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment
Here again we have attempted to meet a point raised by the Opposition at an earlier stage. I think that it was the hon.


and learned Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), who led for the Opposition, who raised the point about what happens if land is taken just before harvest. At that stage I said that I thought there was no danger that there would be unreasonable compensation, but there appears to be some possible doubt. We thought it right to make it quite clear that the occupier will have only a proportionate amount for the period of the first year and will not receive an exceptionally large sum where the land has been taken while he is receiving his year's income out of it by reason of the fact that the harvest has been safely gathered in. I thought that the Bill, as originally drafted, covered the point but it is just as well to make quite sure by means of the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for taking the point, which is now well met, and I would remind him that I am not learned.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 36, at end insert:
20A.—(1) Where in the case of land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies in relation to a compulsory rights order, a person is the owner of that land for part, but not the whole, of a year, subsection (2) of that section shall apply as if any reference to a year included a reference to that part of a year.
(2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall have effect without prejudice to the operation of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 19 of this Schedule, where the said sub-paragraph (3) is applicable; and sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph shall have effect in relation to the preceding sub-paragraph as it has effect in relation to sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) of that paragraph.

5.45 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I apologise to the hon. and unlearned Member for Lewisham, North. This Amendment again arises out of Clause 32. It is purely technical and deals with a case where compensation is payable only for part of the year.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert:

"Concurrent compulsory rights orders

20B. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of

the provisions of this Act relating to compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders in their application to land which—

(a) constitutes or forms part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order, or, in relation to a compulsory rights order, forms part of a holding to which section seventeen or section twenty-nine of this Act applies, or is land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies, and
(b) at any time after the operative date of that order, and before the end of the period of occupation thereunder, constitutes or forms part of the land comprised in another compulsory rights order, or, in relation to another such order, forms part of a holding to which section seventeen or section twenty-nine of this Act applies, or is land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment empowers the Minister to make regulations adapting compensation provisions in odd cases where part of a holding is comprised in one compulsory rights order and another part in another compulsory rights order. It is purely a piece of machinery. Rather awkward matters of detail arise in such a case. The Amendment has nothing to do with going twice over the same land. It deals with that case where one part of a farm happens to be in one area of working and another part in another area. It will be seen that there may be an overlapping of damage and this might produce an extremely complicated problem. The Bill is already sufficiently complicated and it has been thought wise to make this provision by regulation.

Mr. MacDermot: Before we give one of the eight regulation-making powers for which the Minister is asking, I should like to point out that in this Amendment there is no kind of indication of the principles on which the Minister is to make the regulations or of the effect which he will try to achieve by making them. He tells us that a very complicated problem arises, but he does not tell us what he has in mind for solving it. I do not know whether he knows himself or, if he does, whether he can give us any idea of the object that it is hoped to achieve.

Sir I. Horobin: We shall consult all the interests involved and all these regulations will have to be laid and debated. Broadly speaking, the effort will be merely to ensure that nobody fails to be paid at all and that nobody is paid twice.


The difficulty arises because in our efforts to assist the occupier, the farm as a unit is the basis of compensation. Therefore, if there is a situation where one part of a farm is taken under a compulsory rights order we have to consider the effect on the whole farm. If another part of a farm is then taken we have again to consider the effect on the whole farm. It is clearly necessary to ensure that payment is not made twice or that there is not some similar unexpected and unreasonable consequence.

Mr. Champion: The hon. Gentleman said that regulations will be laid and debated. Will that be done under the affirmative procedure or under the negative procedure? In the latter case, if objection were taken it would be necessary to pray against the Order.

Sir I. Horobin: I think that it will be the negative procedure.

Mr. Champion: Then we shall have to pray.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 2, after "lease" insert:
or order conferring working rights

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next four Amendments again deal with the point about the right to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, and also with timber felling contracts, to which we have already referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 3, after second "the" insert "compulsory rights"

In line 3, leave out from "thereof" to "the" in line 5.

In line 9, leave out "timber felling contract" and insert "order conferring working rights"

In line 9, after "the" insert "compulsory rights"

Lords Amendment: In line 15, after "Scotland" insert:
for references to Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act there shall be substituted references to Part IV of that Schedule, excluding paragraph 21 thereof, and

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next Amendment are both Scottish adaptations following on the Amendments which have been accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 17, at end insert:
and for references to an agreement for the letting of land, to the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, and to section two of the Act of 1948, there shall be substituted respectively references to a lease, to the Secretary of State, and to section two of the Scottish Act of 1949.

Seventh Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AND IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 89, line 1, leave out from beginning to "date" in line 7 and insert:

"(1) Where the land comprised in a compulsory rights order consists of or includes the whole or part of an agricultural holding, section thirteen of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the removal of fixtures and buildings) shall have effect in relation to the holding subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In relation to the service of a notice by the tenant on or after the operative date of the order, in respect of a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section (under which the tenant is required to give at least one month's notice of his intention to remove a fixture or building) shall apply with the substitution, for the words 'one month', of the words 'fourteen days'.
(3) Where the tenant has given to the landlord notice under the said subsection (2) (or under that subsection as modified by the last preceding sub-paragraph) of his intention to remove a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order, and that notice is given on or after the operative date of the order, or, if given before that date, expires on or after that"

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the next two Amendments deal with matters arising out of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. In effect, in order to give the tenant slightly more time, they reduce the period of notice to the landlord of the tenant's intention to remove certain fixtures from one month to fourteen days.


It may surprise the House to know that in order to reduce the period from one month to fourteen days it is necessary to have three paragraphs. This arises out of the rather curious drafting at this point of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 11, after "The" insert "last".

In line 11, after "effect" insert:
in relation to a notice served before the operative date of the order".

In line 13, at end insert:
(3) In this paragraph any reference to section thirteen of the Act of 1948 includes a reference to the provisions of that section as extended by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section sixty-seven of that Act (which relates to market gardens)".

Lords Amendment: In page 92, line 35, after "lease" insert:
or order conferring working rights".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next four Amendments all deal with the point about rights to work minerals.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 38, after "lease" insert "or order".

In line 41, after "lease" insert "or order".

In line 43, after "lease" insert "or order".

In line 45, after second "the" insert "compulsory rights".

In page 97, line 5, after "seventeen" insert "sixty-seven".

In line 7, at end insert "sixty-five".

Eighth Schedule.—(TENANCIES OF ALLOTMENT GARDENS AND OTHER ALLOTMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 36, leave out from "garden" to end of line 39.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a technical Amendment to protect the rights of a person who is occupying an allotment used wholly or mainly for

agriculture carried on by way of a trade or business. It is to the advantage of the holder of the allotment that he should be so included.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 98, line 12, after "Board" insert "to the tenant".

Lords Amendment: in line 47, after "four" insert or section five".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment extends the provision which provides compensation for losses on forced sales to allotments which are not allotment gardens. Under the Bill as drafted only an allotment garden attracts compensation. This is obviously a fair Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 99, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert:
in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale".

In line 24, at end insert:
and 'effective date' in this paragraph has the same meaning as in that section".

Lords Amendment: In page 100, line 4, leave out "section" and insert "sections twenty-two and".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next four Amendments are drafting Amendments designed to avoid double payment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 5, at end insert:
(2) The said section twenty-two shall apply in relation to the holding as if any reference in that section to the condition in which land was immediately before the date of entry were a reference to the condition in which the land in question would have been, immediately before the date of entry, if the matters qualifying for compensation had not existed.

In line 13, leave out "the last preceding sub-paragraph "and insert" this paragraph".

In line 40, after "four" insert "or section five".

In line 43, after "two" insert "or section four".

Tenth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL. PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 102, line 40, after "payable" insert:
by or on behalf a the Minister".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is really a drafting Amendment. It deals with the certification procedure and makes it clear that the Minister will only certify the payments which he himself has made. There are certain ex gratia payments made by the Board and, clearly, it would be inappropriate, if not impossible, for the Minister to certify them. So this Amendment is little more than a clarification of the procedure to ensure that the Minister does not have to put himself and the Coal Board to a great deal of trouble in certifying something which is really irrelevant.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 103, line 50, at end insert:
(2) Any reference in any provision of this Schedule to a sum paid on account of a prospective right to compensation of a description specified in that provision includes a reference to a sum paid in consideration of a waiver (whether total or partial) of a prospective claim to compensation of that description.

Lords Amendment: In page 106, line 41, leave out "to" and insert" and serve on"

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, together with the next five, are drafting Amendments, designed to attract the provisions of the Ninth Schedule dealing with serving notices and other documents. They are purely machinery Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 42, leave out from "is" to "a" in line 43 and insert:
a person to whom in accordance with the existing arrangements any periodical payments are payable

In line 44, leave out "he is entitled to those payments" and insert "those payments are payable to him"

In line 46, leave out "to which he is entitled" and insert "which are payable"

In page 107, line 14, leave out "to" and insert "and serve it on"

In page 110, line 28, leave out "25" and insert "26"

Lords Amendment: In line 34, at end insert:
28A. In relation to any land falling within paragraph 24 of this Schedule, the provisions of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, where applicable, shall have effect subject to the modification specified in paragraph 27 of this Schedule

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, which again is very nearly a drafting one, is designed to make it clear that a tenant of land now under requisition, and derequisitioned after the commencement of the Act, will be entitled to compensation from his landlord under Clauses 24 to 30 for any of his improvements. At present, under the requisition procedure, the unfortunate man does not get anything. Under the new procedure in this Measure, of course, he will do so. Therefore, unless we make this Amendment here for the next couple of years there will be some unfair disparities. For instance, one man may be getting compensation for exactly the same thing under the new procedure which another man will not get because it was taken up under requisition procedure. That would be unfair, and therefore by this Amendment we shall assimilate the compensation payable under the requisition procedure for the short period it will still be in operation to that under the provisions of the Bill. I am sure this Amendment will commend itself to everybody.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 47, at end insert:

"Depreciation of other land in same ownership

30A.—(1) The Minister may by regulations make provision for the payment of compensation in respect of land which, at such time as may be prescribed by the regulations, is land wherein the interest of the owner is held by a person who is also the owner of land requisitioned for opencast operations.

(2) Ony such provision made by regulations under this paragraph shall be such as the Minister may consider appropriate for securing that compensation is payable thereunder, in respect of land to which the regulations apply, in cases, and according to principles, corresponding as nearly as may be with the cases in which, and the principles according to which, compensation is payable under section thirty-two of this Act in respect of land to which that section applies."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment arises out of Clause 32, injurious affection, and provides that land which is so adversely affected, where the land is under requisition, shall again, broadly speaking, be treated in the same way as the land under a C.R.O. It is similar to the point we have just dealt with. For the future we are assimilating the compensation for injurious affection of the two cases, those under C.R.O. procedure and those remaining under requisition, which is clearly desirable.

Mr. Neal: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? We are told that the Minister may, by regulations, make provision. We thought, when this Bill was introduced, that it would dispense with the use of Defence Regulations, yet here in this paragraph, and in subsequent pages this phrase is repeated five times. In recent years this House has continually expressed its objection to more and more delegated legislation, and I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say in this regard. This might have been done by statutory provision instead of by the Minister making regulations.

6.0 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin: With the leave of the House, Sir, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that, frankly, I think there is something in the point, but the comparison is not fair, as I am sure he will agree. In getting rid of Defence Regulations we are getting rid of the major power to take away a man's land from him. These are small matters of calculation. They are purely marginal. The Bill has set out in great detail—some of us think in almost too much detail—exactly how the main compensation Clauses shall work. We then find that from time to time there are small matters—this is a very small matter, for instance—where, because of

the technical complications, a new Schedule and possibly a new Clause would be required.
That would overburden the Bill. This is nothing like the Defence Regulations which could take away a man's land. We are here dealing with a very small matter. We have laid down how compensation shall be paid for injurious affection in 99 cases out of 100, but it happens that between now and 1960 there will be certain cases where the land will be held in requisition and then be given up. This is a transitional matter. Those who have followed the passage of the Bill will not be surprised that what is clearly laid down for the general case becomes very complicated for small, marginal and transitional cases.
Rather than hold up the Bill and produce another terrible Schedule five or six pages long, it is better that the Minister should have power to make regulations for adapting in the small and transitional cases the provisions which have been clearly laid down in the general case. I would rather not have all these regulations, but if it is a choice between having the Bill before the Recess or not, then having these regulations is a small price to pay.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 111, line 15, after "apply" insert:
in relation to any time after the commencement of this Act and before the terminal date

In line 19, at end insert:
in relation to any such time

In line 23, after "land" insert:

"(a) no sum shall be payable in respect of that land by virtue of paragraph (6) of the said Regulation fifty-one A. but
(b)"

Lords Amendment: In line 42, at end insert:
34A.—(1) Where at the commencement of this Act—

(a) any land already requisitioned for opencast operations is land which, if it were comprised in a compulsory rights order which became operative immediately after the commencement of this Act, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be land to which that Schedule applies, and
(b) in respect of that land any sum has been paid (whether by the Minister or by the Board) on account of any prospective right to compensation under the said Regulation fifty-one A.



the Minister shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, issue a certificate specifying the amount and date of payment of that sum and the person to whom it was paid.
(2) Any certificate required to be issued in respect of any land in accordance with the preceding sub-paragraph shall be served on any person who, at the date of issue of the certificate, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be the mineral operator in relation to that land if the land were comprised in such a compulsory rights order as is mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph.
(3) The Minister shall serve on the Board a copy of any certificate issued under this paragraph.
34B.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to any sum specified in a certificate issued under the last preceding paragraph.
(2) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of compensation which (apart from paragraph 32 of this Schedule) would have accrued due after the commencement of this Act under paragraph (4) or paragraph (5) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation becoming payable, in respect of any of the land to which the certificate relates, under paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(3) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of a prospective right to compensation under paragraph (6) or paragraph (7) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation which may become payable by virtue of the operation, in relation to any of the land to which the certificate relates, of any provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act in accordance with paragraph 33 or paragraph 34 of this Schedule.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (3) of section forty of this Act applies to any dispute about what proportion of any sum specified in such a certificate was paid as mentioned in subparagraph (2) or subparagraph (3) of this paragraph.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a longish Amendment, but it deals with a small and non-controversial matter. It is designed purely to eliminate the possibility of double payments arising from the fact that we are dealing with a situation which has continued for a long time and for which the Coal Board has made special arrangements from time to time.
It appears that in the past the Board has sometimes paid lump sums in settlement of prospective rights, both for annual and terminal compensation. It would clearly be inequitable to make the Board pay all over again, without taking

into account the fact that it had reached an agreement and had paid a lump sum in settlement. This will not damnify the man concerned, who will be entitled to the same sum in total, but the ex gratia lump sum already paid will be taken into account. That is obviously fair to the Board and it is obviously unreasonable that a man should be paid twice. That is all the Amendment does.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 112, line 7, at end insert:
35A. The provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall not have effect in relation to any land which, at the commencement of this Act, is land already requisitioned for opencast operations, whether that land is subsequently comprised in a compulsory rights order or not.

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This deals with an odd case which we have discovered. It will be remembered that as drafted the Bill provided what was a mutually acceptable way of dealing with allotment holders, which was that their tenancies should terminate and that they should be wholly compensated. However, it appears that there are a few odd cases of persons who held allotments when the land was originally requisitioned and who continue to receive small payments, with the intention of going back to the allotment when the land is derequisitioned. It would seem rather foolish to turn them out and to make extremely difficult calculations as to what their compensation for disturbance would have been five, six or ten years ago.
All the Amendment does is to say that in those odd cases the existing situation shall continue and when the Board gives up possession at the end of its requisition, the allotment holders shall be entitled to go back to their allotments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted insert:

"Concurrent requisitions

35B. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation (including any such provisions contained in this Schedule) in their application to any land in circumstances corresponding (by reason that two or more parcels of land are at the same


time land requisitioned for opencast operations) to the circumstances for which, in relation to compulsory rights orders, provision can be made by regulations under paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act."

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: Hon. Members should note the fact that this last series of Amendments contains no fewer than four new powers for the Minister to make regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) mentioned, the Bill was intended to replace with a statutory code the provisions which had been applied under the Defence Regulations. Consistently through its passage, we have taken the view that the Bill was far too complicated and that the Government have attempted to introduce refinements into the law of compensation which we thought superfluous to any Bill, but which were quite out of place in what was, in effect, a temporary Measure, something catering for a situation which will last only ten to fifteen years.
Quite extraordinary refinements have been introduced and their result has been further complications. At every stage, still further complications have been found and new problems have arisen and we have had to have lengthy Amendments to deal with them. The Bill has now returned from another place with twenty-four pages of Amendments to it. On the last two pages, we find a series of problems for which the Government are unable as yet to provide solutions because they are so complicated that to deal with them would require very lengthy additions to the Bill. The Government's answer to that has been to give the Minister power to make regulations to cover those matters.
This is an illustration of what results when overmuch refinement is brought to bear on what should be kept as a fairly straightforward problem. I hope that when hon. Members opposite find themselves, as they undoubtedly shortly will, on these benches, we shall not hear complaints from them if we find it necessary in pursuing our Measures to take powers to make regulations. I hope that we have heard the last of that, at any rate

from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who at present grace the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. T. Brown: I support what my hon. Friend has just said. For two and a half hours we have been discussing Amendments submitted from another place. Those Amendments give the Minister eight new powers to make regulations. I have been in the House for more than sixteen years and I have seen much legislation, but I have never seen anything like this. It is complicated, confusing and extremely difficult for the ordinary layman to understand.
I do not know what the regulations will be. I wish that I could alter the procedure of the House so that we could debate regulations. The trouble about using regulations when we are faced with complications and complexities is that regulations are subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses and cannot easily be debated. I sometimes wish that I had the opportunity to make regulations.
I was rather surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that these were only small matters. The preservation of woodlands in industrial areas is not a small matter for us. Because we have not had the appropriate regulations, for sixteen years we have had no power to prevent the devastation and destruction which has occurred. During the passage of the Bill, we have sought every opportunity to protect our woodlands.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We passed that about eight pages ago.

Mr. Brown: I was straying from the path. I know that other hon. Members want to debate other Bills which interest them.
I hope that the Minister will be ultra-cautious and very considerate when he has to make regulations dealing with the woodlands in the industrial north and that he will see that the regulations are rigidly enforced to prevent the opencast authorities from causing devastation and destruction similar to that which we have experienced for the last sixteen years.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 33, at end insert:

"Depreciation of other land in same ownership

39A. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 30A of this Schedule, the reference to land requisitioned for opencast operations shall include a reference to land requisitioned as an opencast storage site; and the power to make regulations under that paragraph shall be exercisable accordingly."

After Amendment last inserted insert:

"Concurrent requisitions

39B. In paragraph 36 of this Schedule, the reference to two or more parcels of land which are at the same time land requisitioned for opencast operations shall include references—

(a) to two or more parcels of land of which one or more are land requisitioned for opencast operations and the other or others are at the same time land requisitioned as opencast storage sites, and
(b) to two or more parcels of land both or all or which are at the same time land requisitioned as opencast storage sites;

and the power to make regulations under that paragraph shall be exercisable accordingly."

In page 113, line 13, at end insert:

"PART V

PROVISIONS AS TO WOODLANDS

41A. Without prejudice any exercise of the power conferred on the Minister by paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act, the Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation (including any such provisions contained in this Schedule) in their application to land which—

(a) at such time as may be prescribed far the purposes of this sub-paragraph (either generally, or in relation to any particular provision of this Act, or in relation to land of any description specified in the regulations) is or was land requisitioned for opencast operations or land requisitioned as an opencast storage site, and
(b) at such time as may be so prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, is

or was land used as woodlands, or as woodlands of a particular description specified in the regulations."

Title

Postponed Lords Amendment, in the Title: In line 7, leave out "and".

Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next Lords Amendment to the Title are consequential as they relate to the working facilities under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.

Mr. Ross: I understand that the Title will now read:
… mortgages, milling leases and orders conferring working rights …
I am in considerable difficulty about that, bearing in mind that the term "mortgage" is not the legal term which is used in Scotland. As it is always qualified wherever else it appears, I wonder how it has got into the Title without having been qualified. Since we are making an Amendment of the Title, why do the Government not make it clear that there is no such thing in Scottish law as a mortgage? I believe that it is called "heritable security."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can amend the Title only to bring it into line with the Amendments which we have passed. We cannot do anything more with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Postponed Lords Amendment, in the Title, line 7, after "leases" insert:
and orders conferring working rights,
agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF PERSONS HOLDING OVER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 28, after "and" insert:
(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)

6.8 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. These words were inserted in the English provisions, and this Amendment is merely to bring the Scottish provisions into line with those and to make sure that there is clarity, if that is possible, in the law as it will be after the Bill is passed.

Mr. James McInnes: It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate that the proposed Lords Amendment is already incorporated in the English provisions and that this is merely a matter of bringing the Scottish provisions into line with the English provisions. Nevertheless, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity precisely to explain why, apart from a desire to be on a par with England, it is necessary for this provision to be included?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry. I was trying to save time, but I do not seem to have been very successful. The reason for the original Amendment in the English Clause was that we intended to make clear that liability for damages and dilapidations which had occurred before the Measure applied to the premises concerned should be governed by the tenancy agreement at that time. As it happened, in the English Clause that provision was made. We are merely making the same provision in subsection (5), to ensure that when dilapidations and damages have occurred before the Measure applies they shall be governed by the tenancy agreement in force at that time, and not by the provisions of this Measure.
I hope that I have met the hon. Member's point. I am sorry that I did not

make it clearer, but I was merely trying to save time.

Mr. William Ross: This is the point that I was making. The Solicitor-General has made quite clear what he has in mind, but he has not justified the need for the insertion of this parenthetical phrase. He seems to think that there is some doubt what the subsection means at present, and that these words will clarify it. Statutes are already sufficiently vague and loaded with words. If we are going to go out of our way at this late stage to put in more, there should surely be a specific purpose in so doing. I understood the Solicitor-General to tell us that he was doing this because some doubt might arise as to the responsibility for damage and dilapidation which took place prior to this temporary tenancy.
I ask him to read the subsection. It says:
the occupier shall be treated as exclusively responsible for all internal decorative repairs, and the owner as exclusively responsible for all other repairs, being in each case repairs required to make good damage or dilapidations occurring during the application of this Act to the dwelling-house.
Where on earth is there any obscurity or vagueness which means that we have to put in this additional sentence
(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)"?
Why should the Solicitor-General of Scotland, whether or not advised by the Lord Advocate, suggest that we must put in these words because they are in the English subsection and because the position is not clear? The position in Scotland is quite clear. There is no dubiety about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have asserted himself on a matter of principle like this and should have said that we do not want all this legal verbiage—unless he is looking after the interests of his own fraternity.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: rose—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can speak only once, unless he asks leave of the House.

Mr. Ross: I was giving way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that he had something of importance to say.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had finished his speech.

Mr. Ross: No, Mr. Speaker. I saw the right hon. and learned Gentleman rising, and I gave way.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was not sure whether I was rising by leave of the House or by way of an intervention in the hon. Member's speech, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make it quite clear that these words were inserted not for the benefit of lawyers but for the opposite reason. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the subsection as drafted is reasonably clear, but as he has pointed out on many occasions, if we can make a thing clearer, let us do so. That is what we are trying to do now.

Mr. Ross: That is the point I was making. The Solicitor-General says that he has been trying to clarify the matter, but he has not. If the situation is perfectly clear he does not require any additional words. If he puts them in people will think that they must have some meaning, and all sorts of obscure meanings will be read into them. The Solicitor-General intervened to say that he agreed that the matter was perfectly clear, and by doing so he has given away his whole case.
Why on earth has the Scottish Office allowed this thing to be done? It is no great credit to the legal department of the Scottish Office that it should have had these words foisted upon it, probably by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, asserting once more his strange and mysterious influence on the Scottish Housing Department. I do not think that the subsection needs these words. They do not add to the clarity of the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 18, at end insert:
(1A) In proceedings for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house in which a suspension of execution is granted or refused under section three of this Act (including any application under that section arising out of the grant of such suspension) the court shall not have power to make an order for costs except—


(a) where a suspension of execution is refused or revoked in pursuance of paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of that section; or
(b) where it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively in and in connection with the proceedings, that there are special reasons for the making of such an order."

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, after "costs", to insert "against the occupier".
It might save time and be for the convenience of the House if I indicated now that, having considered the matter, my hon. Friend and I do not propose to move the Amendment, in line 11, leave out from "that" to "such" in line 12, and insert:
it is reasonable to make".
We think that it would really make little difference.
Returning to the Amendment to which I am speaking, the Lords Amendment is intended to remove the court's power to make any order for costs except in two cases, one where a suspension of execution is refused or revoked on grounds applicable under previous Rent Acts, and the second
where it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively in and in connection with the proceedings, that there are special reasons for the making of such an order.
One has to remember that the present practice of the courts, as the Minister told us in earlier discussions of the Bill, is to make no order for costs in cases under the Rent Acts, and it seems probable that that practice would be applied in this type of case.
The question, therefore, is how far we should go in removing the court's power to make an order for costs. The Amendment we propose would prevent the courts making an order for costs against the occupier, but it would leave the owner or the former landlord in exactly the same position as at present, that is to say, in most cases there would be no order for costs.
The reason why an exceptional provision of this sort is required, and was suggested during the Second Reading debate, is quite clear. When the Bill was introduced the Minister indicated its purpose


in words that I do not desire to improve upon for present purposes. He said:
The Bill is before the House for the single purpose of aiding the small number of decontrolled tenants who, by next October, may not have succeeded in making fresh arrangements although they have done their best."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 1168.]
There was no intention in the Bill to do anything but help tenants who were, in effect, being turned out of their houses—some of which they may have occupied for a long time—as a result of the Government's main Rent Act.
There is no need today to discuss how many of them there will be; there is no need to refer again to the feelings which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, hon. Members on this side of the House still entertain in relation to the Rent Act in general and the operation of the eviction part of it in particular. The one point we have to consider is the position of those remaining hardship tenants who are threatened with eviction and have to depend upon the Bill, limited in character as it is, for some measure of temporary protection. The plain fact is that whatever we put into the Bill we cannot get over the fact that many of these tenants—and I would say most—are really frightened of going to court at all. To some extent they are merely frightened of the courts, but their particular reason is that they are frightened of costs, the scope and amount of which they are extremely apt to exaggerate.
When the Bill was being discussed previously hon. Members on both sides of the House had this point very much in mind. The practical task is to give these people the limited protection afforded by the Bill without allowing their fear of the courts to make that protection nugatory, because if it persists the result will be that a tenant who might, even under the terms of the Bill, have succeeded in getting some temporary relief if he went to court, will not go there and will either be turned out or will come to some harsh and unconscionable bargain with the landlord, with whom in normal circumstances he would have been unable to agree.
That is the practical thing that we all want to do. Accordingly, the Lord Chancellor in another place, speaking for the Government in regard to the Clause which we are now discussing in the form

of a Lords Amendment, after referring to the practice of the courts at present and saying that it presumably be followed in these cases, said
that is not sufficient. We must make sure that in a Bill which we all desire should prevent hardship no one should be frightened out of a remedy for that hardship through fear of costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 15th July. 1958; Vol. 210, c. 1103.]
I entirely agree, but the hardship to which the Lord Chancellor was referring was the occupiers hardship and not that of the owner. Whatever may or may not be the owner's hardships, they are nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill is intended simply to give temporary relief to occupiers.
I agree that we must be fair to landlords or owners—call them what we will. Personally, I have always taken great care, in talking about the main Act and this Measure, to make it quite clear that hon. Members on this side of the House do not think that all landlords are bad, or that all tenants are good. We recognise that landlords also have their difficulties. But that is not the point we are now considering. What will happen in all these cases is that, having failed to agree with the tenant, the landlord will go to the court to get an order to turn the tenant out. That is background. There can be little or no discussion about that prima facie right.
The question will be whether the tenant can get the order suspended. In the majority of these cases there is likely to be considerable discussion on the facts. At an earlier stage the right hon. Gentleman explained that costs did not matter so much from the point of view of the tenant, because what the tenant would have to show would be purely fact.
6.30 p.m.
I cannot go quite so far as that. After all, the tenant has to prove questions regarding what is and what is not reasonable on what I should have thought to be at the least mixed fact and law. We agree that the tenant will have to discharge a considerable burden of proof in relation to facts and there may be questions—I do not say there will—of external evidence. There may even be questions of expert evidence. Really, in a balanced case, where it is a question of whether the tenant has done all that he should to find somewhere else to go, where it is also a question of whether a particular


proposal was one which was reasonable and the refusal of which was therefore unreasonable, and on questions of greater hardship, too, those are matters which will be involved.
We may very well think, assuming a good and honest landlord and a good and honest tenant, that there will be real debates, and that the case will go on for a good deal longer than a single day. That is not out of the question. And the effect of the Clause as produced by the Amendment we are now discussing is that in any litigation of that sort the tenant can never recover costs from the landlord, if we assume, as I have assumed for this purpose, that on the whole they are two reasonable parties, and the differences between them are matters which are arguable and balanced and are not in any way instances of unfair or unreasonable behaviour on either side. So, far from protecting the tenant, in the normal and reasonable case he will be bound to pay his own costs.
I cannot accept the proposition that in that type of case any hon. Member would recommend a tenant to act by himself. No doubt he would have to in some cases, but we are trying to extend the facilities for legal aid. We have been told time and again by the Minister that in other matters, not really of any greater importance to him than this, the tenant should get the best advice he can. It seems in line with what has been said on those matter that the tenant would be well advised in such a case to get the local solicitor or some other suitable person to represent him.
It cannot be right that we should contemplate a state of affairs where the tenant could be deprived of the possibility of representation in that way or that, however right and successful he may be, he cannot get his costs back from the landlord. I am not talking about unreasonable cases or special reasons—I am coming to that in a moment—but in the ordinary type of case we should not deprive the court of the power to make an order against the owner.
There is here a provision which will protect the landlord against a wholly unreasonable tenant and which will, of course, enable the tenant to recover costs from a wholly unreasonable landlord. That is the special circumstances provision which I read out just now. But one

has to remember that these cases of "special reasons"—whether those particular words are used or not—are apt to be very strictly construed by the courts. We all remember special reasons in relation to depriving motorists of their right to drive for a period of time. There are similar cases under a provision in the Bankruptcy Acts, and there is another case in the criminal law. Those words, or similar words, occur in quite a number of places and they always lead to a strict construction. It would be taking up the time of the House unduly to argue—as should be prepared to argue—that they are bound to lead to a strict construction.
Therefore, while recognising that the words are there, that they are some measure of assistance, we contend that they do not really meet the case which we have in mind. I suggest that if we are to have this provision at all, it must be limited to the special protection being given to the occupier and not to the owner.
I hope that no hon. Member opposite will say, "Well, this is most unfair. This shows that you are prepared to deny to one man what you are only too ready to give to another." I hope that will not be said, because anyone advancing that type of argument would seem to me to forget entirely the real purpose of the Bill, and the real, human fact that in these cases it will be the occupier who will be frightened out of the remedy which we want to give to him because of fear of the courts and fear of costs. This special provision ought to be given—as indeed in another place the Lord Chancellor indicated it should—to meet that fear and that fright, and not to provide a special protection for landlords who are already sufficiently protected under the existing practice of the law.
I hope that hon. Members opposite who, in earlier stages of our discussions on the Bill, were very appreciative of the difficulties about costs, will now look at the real, human facts of the matter—as, to do them justice, I think they have tried to do previously—and will agree with me that this Amendment ought to be introduced.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this Amendment because it is designed to give better effect to what is, or what was, declared the intention of the Government Amendment in another place. As the matter was explained there, it was recognised that there was a real danger that tenants would be afraid to try to exercise their rights under the Bill, because of the risk that if they did so and lost the day, they might be saddled with a heavy burden of costs.
It was said in answer to that, "Well, in the vast majority of cases of this kind it is the practice of the courts to make no order as to costs." But it also was recognised that it provides small comfort to tell that to a tenant who is in such a state of fear, because he will still be in a state of fear thinking that his case will be the hundredth, and that the ninety-nine other cases will not include his. So it was said, "What, in effect, we will do is to give statutory effect to what has become the practice of the courts." So we find that the Government Amendment provides that, as a general rule, there will be no order at all as to costs, but that if there are special circumstances, and special circumstances having regard to the conduct of the parties in and in connection with the proceedings, there may be an order for costs. So far, so good.
But what is not provided for in the Lords Amendment, and to which our Amendment is directed, is the way in which there can be further oppression offered to the tenant, namely, where we get the case of a tenant who knows that if he is going to take the point that he thinks he is entitled to a suspension of the order, it may raise difficult questions of fact which will have to be litigated, and at some expense. The tenant may feel very confident about his case, but may say, "I cannot afford to incur all the legal costs of bringing these proceedings. I cannot afford to engage solicitors, counsel and expert witnesses, and so on, to prove that I am entitled to an extension of six months or nine months, or whatever it may be."
As the Lords Amendment stands, there will be no possibility of recovering those costs from the landlord even if the occupier is successful, unless two conditions are satisfied. There must be

special circumstances. There may be no special circumstances from the point of view of the law. Secondly, there must have been something in the conduct of the landlord to cause the court to make the order against him.
That would put additional fear into the minds of the tenant against exercising his rights under the Bill and his right to obtain an order. He would be entitled to an order for costs only where he had succeeded on the real issue of whether he should have an extension or not. His right should be preserved to obtain an order from the landlord in those circumstances.
The Minister said at an earlier stage he felt that the success of the Bill would be judged by the extent to which tenants came to new agreements with their landlords. That could have a doubtful connotation if the Bill were weighted too heavily in favour of the landlords, making them able to bring undue pressure upon tenants. Many new agreements may be entered into in those circumstances, but the Bill would not do what it was intended to do, go some way to restore the balance between landlord and tenant.
I have been very interested in reading a pamphlet recently put out by Conservative lawyers on the constitutional and legal position of trade unions. It is an interesting statement of Tory principles which I have not found before in Tory legislation. A passage in this pamphlet reads:
The sanctity of contracts freely negotiated is a principle that has bitten deep into the English concept of a free country. It has however long been recognised by Tories that a just application of the doctrine demands that when agreements are made between citizens certain overriding conditions should prevail. If these conditions do not exist, far from justice resulting, grave injustice may occur. The most essential of those conditions is that the parties when contracting should be, broadly speaking, on equal terms
To try to go some way to restoring that balance and enabling the parties to be on equal terms, we have put forward the Amendment, which will preserve the tenant's ordinary right to costs if he is successful, while not putting him in peril of having to pay the landlord's costs merely because he has done that which he is invited to do by the Bill, namely, apply to the court for temporary relief by the suspension of the order for possession.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: The Amendment from another place improves matters considerably. It deals with costs which oppress the occupier, but it does not go far enough. I should like to give the Minister a practical illustration of its effect.
Suppose an owner brings an action for recovery of possession against an occupier. Assume that it was quite clear that the occupier was perfectly ready to enter into an agreement for three years. He was not able to obtain occupation anywhere else, yet the owner has brought the action for possession. The owner fails and there is, in the words of the Amendment, a suspension of execution.
In that case it would be wrong that the owner should not have to pay costs because the owner has brought before the court the occupier, somebody of little means, the sort of person whom the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The occupier is the person who suffers hardship and therefore has to be protected. He has had to incur costs in meeting the demand made upon him by the owner. Is it not right in that case that the owner should pay costs?
This contingency has been carefully guarded against in the Lords Amendment. The owner should pay the costs, but he is protected from paying costs in the ordinary way. It is not a case where the learned judge looks at the circumstances and says, "This is a case where I ought to use my discretion. I will not award costs against the owner, although he has failed". By virtue of this provision in the Bill the owner is protected. I start with the proposition that an order for costs ought reasonably to be made against the owner who brings proceedings for recovery of possession and fails.
On the other hand, costs ought not to be against an occupier. This is the purpose of our present Amendment. Why is there a distinction between the two? The distinction is this. From a practical point of view we are dealing with two different classes. The owner brings an action for possession against the occupier, who is a person of little means and who has suffered hardship. In the case of the occupier failing he ought not to pay the costs. That does not mean that he

does not pay in some cases. The exception provided for is if the occupier has done something wrong, if his conduct is blameworthy in some way. In these cases there may well be a special reason, and under the proviso the learned judge may order the occupier to pay costs.
We should contrast the two different cases in that way, and appreciate that the real point is that the occupier should be protected against any liability for costs. The owner is already sufficiently protected. The Amendment which is now proposed to the Lords Amendment will fully meet the position. The court will not have power to make an order for costs against the occupier, except in the special circumstances set out in paragraph (b) where he is in default. It ought to have power in the ordinary case to make an order for costs against the owner, as well as in the special case provided for in paragraph (b). In those circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to approach this matter from a practical point of view. If he does so, he will find that the proper solution is to be found in adopting the words of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) referred to cases where application is made for the possession order and a suspension is granted as being cases in which the owner lost because the suspension was granted. One must remember that the owner has obtained the order for possession for which he has asked, and to that extent he is the successful litigant.
I would not base a particular argument on that, but it seems that what hon. Members opposite have in mind all the time is a picture of the wealthy landlord and the very poor tenant. That may be perfectly true in a number of cases, but it is not always true. There is the poor landlord endeavouring to get possession of premises. The hardship provision in this Clause recognises such a case. We ought always to be hesitant about relieving any litigant of the costs of fighting an action. We have seen the sort of difficulties which arise in granting legal aid certificates. The benefit to be achieved from legal aid overcomes those


difficulties, but undoubtedly there are litigants who say in effect, "Let us have a shot at it; we have nothing to lose".
I believe that any sort of statutory provision we bring in to relieve people of the costs of litigation ought to be studied very carefully I am not at all wedded to this Lords Amendment, but if it is to go into the Bill—here I take up the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—the provision should go in for both parties. The hon. and learned Member put the case of the tenant being frightened to take action because of the costs, but the same might apply to the landlord. He might be scared of taking action because of the costs. I should have thought we could have left this entirely to the discretion of the court. Then the sort of case put by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North would be well met in justice by the second paragraph of the Lords Amendment and the provision for special reasons. If a landlord takes a tenant to court and has no justification for so doing, the court will see that he pays the sanction in costs.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Member saying that if the owner fails in an action that automatically means that there is a special reason for the court to grant costs?

Mr. Page: I am not sure what the hon. and learned Member means by saying "fails in an action". That is where there is a difficulty. The landlord may succeed in getting an order for possession but that order is suspended. He has achieved something because he has got the possession settled for a certain period of time. The tenant is coming before the court asking for a concession by asking for the suspension of the possession order. I should have thought that in nearly all these cases the right thing for the court to do would be to make no order for costs, but let each party pay its own costs. There would be some sort of sanction against frivolous litigation and not a penalty against either the landlord or the tenant going to the court and asking for his rights to be settled. If the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is accepted, it will bear hardly on landlords who have not got the funds for litigation, and there are many who have not got those funds.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I have listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I am not convinced. He is a practising solicitor. I think he will find in the course of his personal experience in dealing with a number of these cases that the real difficulty is experienced by the person who has been in a house for a considerable time and is then faced by the fact that an Act which he never expected to be passed has been passed.
The occupier is in a different position from the landlord. If it were a fact that the landlord, when bringing proceedings, had weighed up the position, he would not have an extension of the period of execution made against him in the court. In other words, if he wants to take an action it is up to him to take it at the right time, so that if he brings the facts before the court he can convince the court that it should grant an extension and not give the tenant the right to have execution suspended.
The hon. Member was not right when he said that the landlord has not failed in his action if suspension is given, because the very fact that suspension is given is in itself an indication that the landlord has brought his case at the wrong time. It is rather important to remember that. It is not just a question of a concession. The occupier has to prove that there are reasons why the order should be suspended. Therefore, when he takes his action the owner has failed if execution of the order is suspended.
In my view, the occupier is in a very much worse position than the owner. It means everything to him. Some of us have seen the desperate manner in which in consequence of this Act occupiers have gone to the courts in order to ascertain what they should do. They have to find somewhere to go. I am not exaggerating; this is my experience and, I am sure, the experience of many others in practice. These people do not know what to do and they are desperate. They are placed in such a position that they cannot go elsewhere. They have nowhere to go. If the order is suspended, at some time it is intended that its execution shall no longer be suspended. An occupier should be given the opportunity of


bringing his case before the court without the additional fear that even if he is successful he is not to have his house.
A man can be ruined by an action of that sort. The question of hardship is one on which courts have been engaged for a considerable period of time. Cases have extended over several hours and have sometimes gone on from one day to another. It requires the best possible skill to get a case properly presented to the court so that the court can make up its mind as to whether the ground of hardship is greater in one direction or the other.
7.0 p.m.
The Amendment says that the occupier should not be deprived of getting costs in the event of his being successful. It is very late in our consideration of this Bill, but I appeal to the Minister to realise that he is dealing with the lives of men and women and not merely with houses. Consequently, it is highly important that some kind of protection should be given to those who have a case. Of course, if it is a frivolous case that is entirely different, and obviously the judge would not grant the costs. If it is a case in which the person who is successful is the occupier, this is a very small concession to make, but a very important one for the occupier. It would entitle him to his house.
I hope that in the circumstances the Minister will consider the matter from the point of view which has been so very well put by my hon. and learned Friends, and to which I have made my feeble addition. I hope that he will ignore the imperfect way in which I have put the matter, and that he will assist occupiers who are really desperate and do not know what to do.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): In dealing with this Amendment, I must first say a word or two about the background of the Lords Amendment which hon. Members opposite seek to amend, because the whole matter hangs together. It is entirely concerned with the question of costs, which was debated at various stages when the Bill was before this House. A fear was expressed, not from one side of the House only, that occupiers might be deterred from seeking the suspension of an order for possession by fear of the costs in which they might be involved. An order

for costs might be made against them, so the argument ran, and it would be wiser for them to play for safety and not to oppose the landlord.
On Report stage, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) moved an Amendment which I was not able to accept. He forcibly argued that as the owner was bound to succeed on the claim for possession, even though the execution of the order might be suspended for a period under this Measure, the court might automatically consider the owner entitled to an order for costs. The Government did not take that view. I expressed my opinion to the House that the courts would almost certainly act as in comparable cases under the Rent Acts and make no orders as to costs. I still believe that would be the position even if this Lords Amendment had not come to us.
I promised at that time that I would carefully examine the arguments and discuss the whole position with the Lord Chancellor, who has great experience of the county courts and their working. The outcome was that we came to the conclusion that, while it would be the general practice of the courts, in the absence of any provision such as this, probably to make no order for costs at all, on balance there would be an advantage in putting the matter beyond doubt and removing the possibility—this was the important point—that some occupiers might be frightened out of even seeking the relief which the Bill holds out to them through fear that they might have to pay the owners' costs as well as their own.
It is solely to still those fears that this Lords Amendment has come to us and, as I think the House appreciates after this debate, its effect will be that in the great generality of cases there will be no order as to costs. Under this Lords Amendment, the court is left with sufficient discretion to enable it to deal with the cases where one party or the other has been guilty of irresponsible conduct; irresponsible conduct, either in bringing the proceedings, or in the handling of them or, perhaps, in involving the other side in additional expense—for instance, by an adjournment that ought never to have been necessary.
The Amendment also excludes the case where the court refuses to grant or revoke a suspension on the same grounds on


which possession of a controlled dwelling could be given under the Rent Acts. Therefore, I do not think that there is any question between us that the courts would and should be guided in any case by their practice in Rent Act cases.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved this Amendment, which seeks to draw a distinction between the action of the owner and that of the occupier, and I must frankly say that I cannot accept that we should recognise such a distinction. His Amendment appears to me to be based on the assumption that the owner will be acting in some way less reasonably than the occupier in making application to the court—

Mr. Mitchison: No.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, that is the distinction. Unless it is assumed that some distinction exists, there is no case whatever for the Amendment—

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly put the reasons for the Amendment that has come from the Lords as relating to the occupiers' fears. Why should that Amendment give an additional right to the owner?

Mr. Brooke: The approach of the Government is different from that of the learned Gentleman. We on the Government side proceed on the basis that this is a straight conflict of right and that, in the normal case, each side should bear its own costs and should not be expected to bear the costs of the other. We are not convinced by the arguments that have been adduced by the other side that there should be assumed to be some difference in the reasonableness of the actions of the two parties.
In fact, there is no ground for believing that in any one of these cases either party will be acting unreasonably. The mere fact that the owner has applied to the court is no indication that he is unreasonable. He may have the strongest possible ground for so applying. That being so, I fail to see the slightest ground for establishing, by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, any difference in the treatment of the two parties before the court. On those grounds, I must invite the House to reject his Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he not say something about the difference in status of the persons; and remember that when he introduced the Bill he said that it was to protect people of small means from suffering hardship?

Mr. Brooke: If I may speak again, Mr. Speaker. Let us, if we possibly can—even at this late stage—get out of our heads that there are two classes of persons—the wealthy owners and the poor occupiers—and that all belong to one class or the other. That was my principal point of criticism of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). He spoke of the owner bringing an action for possession as belonging to one category and, against that, he drew the picture of the occupier of little means.
In many cases, of course, the owners will be of little means. It is well worth remembering that the big property company is never likely to succeed under the fourth test in Clause 3, because how a property company will be able to establish greater hardship I do not know. But there may well be cases where an individual owner is a person not of large means at all. However, there is no need for us to argue about that here. It will be argued before the courts.
I must say that I think we have come right back to what has been the fundamental weakness of the Opposition's case in all these debates; the false assumption that the occupier is always a poor man, of small means, and that he deserves a greater degree of sympathy on that ground than does the owner, who is assumed to be a man of considerable substance. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is not a true account of the position.

Mr. Weitzman: But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the owner of small means gets the benefit of the Clause as being a person in special circumstances entitled to costs? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument has no validity at all.

Mr. Mitchison: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman having completely misunderstood, or misstaited, the arguments that were addressed to the House; and having forgotten the purpose of his own Bill, we shall divide the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 204.

Division No. 206.]
AYES
[7.12 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Albu, A. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, A. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Beswick, Frank
Hoy, J. H.
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reeves, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lawson, G. M.
Spriggs, Leslie


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Logan, D. G.
Stonehouse, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McCann, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McLeavy, Frank
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Diamond, John
Mahon, Simon
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, W. N.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Fitch, Alan




Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Orbach, M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woof, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.



Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pentland, N.
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Short.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, F. P.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Alport, C. J. M.
Black, C. W.
Cooke, Robert


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Body, R. F.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bonham Carter, Mark
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Ashton, H.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Corfield, Capt F. V.


Atkins, H. E.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barber, Anthony
Braine, B. R.
Cunningham, Knox


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Currie, G. B. H.


Barter, John
Bryan, P.
Dance, J. C. G.


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Deedes, W. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Channon, Sir Henry
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bidgood, J. C.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Drayson, C. B.


Bingham, R. M.
Cole, Norman
du Cann, E. D. L.




Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Duthie, W. S.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, H. P.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fell, A.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Kershaw, J. A.
Profumo, J. D.


Fisher, Nigel
Kimball, M.
Rawlinson, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kirk, P. M.
Redmayne, M.


Foster, John
Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Gammans, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Glover, D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Glyn, Col. Richard H
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Roper, Sir Harold


Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Goodhart, Philip
McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R. S.


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Sharples, R. C.


Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, Alan
Shepherd, William


Gram, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Green, A.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Storey, S.


Grimond, J.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)




Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mathew, R.
Temple, John M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mawby, R. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Moore, Sir Thomas
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Neave, Airey
Wade, D. W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Wall, Patrick


Holt, A. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.
Webster, David


Hornby, R. P.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Pau (Sunderland, S.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Osborne, C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.
Woollam, John Victor


Hurd, A. R.
Peel, W. J.



Hutchison, Michael clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Mr. Brooman-White and


Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Hughes-Young.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 40, after "Scotland" insert "'costs' means expenses".

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is merely a question of the translation from Anglo-Saxon into Gaelic.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(REPORTS ON SLAUGHTERHOUSE FACILITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert:
of any one or more classes or descriptions".

7.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We could perhaps consider this Amendment and the following one which deals with an exactly similar point.
These Amendments are really drafting Amendments which are intended to clarify the position. Clause 3, as I am sure hon. Members will remember, refers to the date on which the report shall be submitted. The purpose of the Amendment is merely to clarify it; it does not change the intention in any degree.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am rather surprised to see this Amendment on the Order Paper. We gave this Bill a very thorough examination in its passage through this place and I did not think that there was an opportunity for further Amendment, but I would like to congratulate the Government on their ingenuity, and accept this as a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 17, leave out from "premises" to "being" in line 19 and insert:
of any one or more classes or descriptions.".

Clause 4.—(GRANT OF NEW SLAUGHTERHOUSE LICENCES AFTER SUBMISSION OF REPORT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 11, after "licence" insert:
after the submission of their report aforesaid, being an application to which subsection (5) of section three of this Act does not apply and".

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment and the two following Amendments have as their purpose the removal of a procedural defect. They are, therefore, to some extent, largely drafting. What we are seeking to do is to prevent certain applications being considered twice over. Clause 3 (6) provides that application for new licences received during the two months' period allowed for making representations to the Minister about the local authorities slaughterhouses report must be considered by the Minister before he accepts the Report. He has the power to direct, that they shall be deemed to be included in the report.
If the Minister does that, they have a right to a licence in exactly the same way as any other slaughterhouse. What we have not provided for until now is the procedure to be followed if the Minister decides not to give such a direction. It would be pointless, if the Minister decided that there is no case for the application, for it to have to come up again under Clause 4. We provide for that in these Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 23, at end insert:
(2A) Where in the case of an application of which a copy has been forwarded to the Minister by a local authority under subsection (5) of section three of this Act, being an application for the grant of a new slaughterhouse licence, the Minister determines not to give such a direction as is mentioned in subsection (6) of that section, he shall direct the authority to refuse the application forthwith, and the authority shall comply with that direction.

Clause 6.—(SPECIAL GROUNDS FOR, AND APPEALS AGAINST, CERTAIN REFUSALS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 13, line 35, after "Act" insert:
or under subsection (2A) of that section".

Clause 7.—(SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND KNACKERS' YARDS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 43, at end insert:
or
(e) the confinement of such animals as aforesaid while awaiting slaughter at other premises, in a case where the place of confinement is available in connection with those other premises, is not maintained primarily for agricultural purposes within the meaning


of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or, as the case may be, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and does not form part of premises used for the holding of a market in respect of such animals.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment makes it clear that the Factory Acts of 1937 and 1948 will apply to lairages other than those on agricultural or market premises. It corrects a drafting weakness to which the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) drew attention on the Report stage, and the matter was also raised in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Farrington.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the time of the Report stage said that he would consider the matter and he gave an assurance that if there was any element of doubt in the existing wording we would clear it up. There may be some doubt. I personally think that my hon. Friend was right in saying that lairages were included. As there is some doubt, we have suggested that this Amendment would clear away any possible vestige of uncertainty which there may be in the matter, and we have given the right hon. Member for Blyth the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the Government. Although there is no issue of principle in this, slaughterhouses are not defined in the Factory Acts and we were anxious, and I think that the Government shared our anxiety, that all the processes of slaughtering should be covered. We were satisfied with regard to subjecting the meat to processing, but we were not altogether satisfied on lairages. The Government have met us now, and I am very glad that they have removed any doubts which there may have been.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 10.—(GRANTS FOR MEAT INSPECTION AT SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 26, leave out "is likely to be" and insert:
it appears to him should be regarded as

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. I think that it speaks for itself.

Mr. Willey: I rise only to say that we agree that this improves the language. This Bill had a Second Reading in November, went to another place in April and we agree that it is now more intelligible, but we regret that it has not been as improved as it might have been.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

First Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 29, at end insert:
14A. In section fifty in subsection (3), the following paragraph shall be inserted at the end—
'In this subsection "the prescribed period" means the period prescribed by the Lord Chancellor by order made by statutory instrument (which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament); and the power to make orders under this subsection shall include a power, exercisable in the like manner, to revoke or vary any order made thereunder.'

7.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is envisaged to enable the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the period under Section 50 (3) of the 1948 Act by order and not by regulation. There are several Amendments of this type which we are bringing forward. They are designed to tidy the matter up, so that when the Lord Chancellor seeks to bring in an order he can introduce a comprehensive one, and not have to bring in a number of individual regulations. There is no issue of principle; it is a matter of convenience.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 18, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.

Lords Amendment: In line 7, at end insert:
20A.—(1) The provisions of paragraph 24 of the Sixth Schedule (under which a special case may be stated for the opinion of the


county court where any question of law arises in the course of an arbitration under the Act of 1948) shall apply in relation to a question as to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator as they apply in relation to a question of law arising in the course of an arbitration.
(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule relating to the fixing and recovery of the remuneration of an arbitrator and the making and enforcement of an award as to costs, together with any other provision thereof applicable for the purposes of or in connection with those provisions, shall apply where the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide the question referred to him as they apply where the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide that question.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is, I am afraid, a rather technical Amendment to deal with a rather complicated point, but I will try to explain it as clearly as I can. At present the Sixth Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, which provides for the conduct of arbitrations on agricultural tenancies, enables the arbitrator to obtain a ruling from the county court on a question of law arising out of the case. But this is not wide enough to enable the arbitrator to get a ruling on the question whether he has any jurisdiction in the case—that is, whether it is a case in which he can properly give a decision.
This can be important. It might be argued, for example, by one side or the other that the holding was not an agricultural holding at all, or that a notice had been served on someone said to be the tenant in a case where it was claimed that a joint tenancy existed. In such cases it is convenient for the arbitrator to get a decision from the county court immediately on this point before he deals with other issues. I suppose it could be asked why in such cases the Minister appointed the arbitrator. The answer is that if application is made to the Minister to appoint an arbitrator in a case which seems, on the facts presented to the Minister, to be one on which he can properly act, the Minister must appoint the arbitrator.
The second matter dealt with by this Amendment is to provide that where an arbitrator is appointed and it is then held by the court that he has no jurisdiction, he can still award costs and have his own remuneration fixed. This is obviously necessary. Otherwise an arbitrator might

put in a great deal of work on the case and then find that he could not have any fee paid to him for his work and costs could not be awarded.
We have discussed this rather complicated point with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and they support us. I understand that there was support on both sides in another place when this subject was mentioned. I hope the House will agree that this is a desirable Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is equal accord in this House. I am not only impressed by the agreement of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but I have looked into the point and I think it is necessary to take this step to safeguard the position of the arbitrator.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 25 after "Lord Chancellor" insert:
and for the reference to regulations there shall be substituted a reference to orders,

Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 39, column 3, at end insert:
In section seventy-three, in subsection (3), paragraph (c).

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Due to an oversight, this point was not included previously. It is merely a drafting Amendment in the list of enactments which have been repealed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on action taken at an earlier stage when we rewrote Clause 26, which I am sure gladdened the heart of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who feels strongly about this matter.

Mr. Willey: We welcome the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in Standing Committee, and we gladly accept the consequences.

Question put and agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 31, at end insert:
A1. Where, by virtue of any provision of the First Schedule to this Act, any functions of the Minister under an enactment referred to in that provision fall to be exercised after the coming into operation thereof by the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator, anything done in the exercise of those functions, in so far as it has effect immediately before the coming into operation of that provision shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, continue to have effect thereafter as if done by the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator, as the case may be, under the said enactment as amended by this Act.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This and the next Amendment go together. We are here inserting this provision in place of paragraphs 5 and 6 on page 29 of the Bill. Those paragraphs make certain provisions relating to the powers of the Minister in the transitional stage in relation to the 1948 Act. We were advised that they did not fully cover all the circumstances that might arise and we have, therefore, used this different form which gives a wider cover. There is no point of principle at stake.

Mr. Willey: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is wiser to make a general provision. I believe that these are the last of the Amendments dealing with England, and I hesitate to trespass on Scottish affairs—

Mr. Godber: There is one more English Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I thought that Amendment was consequential. I have nothing further to say until we reach it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 29, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 13.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 30, and insert:
9A. Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph A1 of this Schedule, regulations

made by the Minister under section twenty-six or section fifty of the Act of 1948 in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall continue in force thereafter and shall be treated as orders made by the Lord Chancellor under the said section twenty-six, or, as the case may be, the said section fifty, as amended by this Act.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is the last of the Amendments before we reach the Scottish ones, and I look forward with warm anticipation to what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will say about this very satisfactory Bill. This is merely another of the small points providing for orders in place of regulations, and this Amendment is exactly on all fours with the previous one dealing with this point.

Mr. Willey: As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, this is a minor Amendment dealing with a matter with which we have already dealt. In fact, it is so minor that I hardly apologise for overlooking it.
As this is the last of the Amendments dealing with the English part of the Bill, I should like to say that we on this side of the House are very disappointed that we have got from another place only very minor Amendments and that no attention has been paid to the fact that the industry generally is hostile to the Bill and that it is thoroughly unwelcome. For that reason, we are very disappointed.

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 25 leave out "Paragraph 1" and insert "Paragraphs A1 and 1".

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We now come to the most important Amendments on the Paper. I think this and the next Amendment in line 27 might be taken together. They are consequential and they are of Scottish application following on Amendments previously made.

Mr. William Ross: I should have thought that we would have


had a speech adequate to the description which the Lord Advocate has given to this Amendment, whereas he dealt with it in a rather slipshod manner.
The following Amendment in line 27 states:
(1a) in paragraph A1 for references to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator there shall be substituted respectively references to the Secretary of State and to the Land Court or an arbiter;".
It is a little confusing when we read words like that. When we are asked to substitute things, we are entitled to expect that there shall be an equivalent number of things for which there are to be substitutions. We find, of course, that the words are "references to the Minister"—that is the first thing—"to the Lord Chancellor"—that is the second thing—"the Agricultural Land Tribunal"—that is the third—and "an arbitrator"—that is the fourth. Then we are given respective terms to apply to those four, but when we read them we find that there are only three. I wonder exactly what is to apply here. It says:
there shall be substituted respectively references to the Secretary of State and to the Land Court or an arbiter.
Does that mean that for "Minister" shall be substituted "Secretary of State" and for "Lord Chancellor" there shall be substituted "the Land Court"?
For most important Amendments, I think the matter could have been a wee bit clearer. Is the learned Lord Advocate entirely satisfied with the wording? I assure him that, if this had come before the Scottish Grand Committee, we should probably have spent about five or six hours on it and given the matter the importance which the Lord Advocate himself said should be attached to it. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with this last-minute change which comes from another place? In my view, it is very loose use of the word "respectively", when, for four things,

we are told that we must substitute only three new terms. I know that he will probably now give me a lecture on the conjunction "and", but I should be glad to have some explanation from him.

The Lord Advocate: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to satisfy the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is usually so helpful on drafting matters. If he will read the Amendment again, he will see that in the first and second line we have the words
to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor
and we then have a comma, after which we go on with the other two parties. I think that it is perfectly clear, but we are interested to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to:

In page 30, line 27, at end insert:
(1a) in paragraph A1 for references to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator there shall be substituted respectively references to the Secretary of State and to the Land Court or an arbiter;

In line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.

In page 31, line 12, at end add:
14A. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 36 of the First Schedule to this Act, the regulations made by the Secretary of State under section twenty-seven of the Scottish Act of 1949 in force immediately before the day appointed for the coming into operation of section three of this Act shall continue to have effect for the purposes of any proceedings consequent upon a notice to quit in a case where the tenant served on the landlord a counter-notice under subsection (1) of section twenty-five of that Act before that day.

Orders of the Day — INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL ROADS

7.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, dated 22nd July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we also debated the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958. The Questions could then be put separately at the end.

Mr. Ernest Davies: We have no objection.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Nugent: The Order and Regulaions we are considering are the Instruments necessary to provide for the use of the new motorways, of which we shall see the first sample in this country in November on the Preston bypass. The Preston bypass is a short length of motorway of about eight miles, which is the forerunner of what I hope will be a network of major routes in this country, motorways which will provide the country with a first-class basic network of roads.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Before he proceeds, will the Minister tell the House what lanes of traffic are provided for on this stretch of the road? I understand that there are to be two lanes only. Perhaps he will confirm that.

Mr. Nugent: I was intending to give a brief description of the motorway. I thought that that would be helpful, and, indeed, I should be very glad to do it forthwith if that would assist.
The design of all motorways is intended to provide a road which will be safe for large volumes of traffic to travel fast in safety. The design, therefore, provides for no intersections except in the service areas, which on full, complete motorways will occur roughly every twelve miles, where clover-leaf intersections will be provided. Otherwise, the two carriage-ways

will be completely separate. There will be no direct intersections at all. There will be either bridges over existing roads or tunnels underneath. There will be cuttings through the hills and causeways through the valleys to eliminate any steep gradients, corners and so on, so that the roads really will be safe for fast travel.
On the Preston motorway, which is the one we are immediately considering, there are two carriageways each laid out with two lanes only, but provision has been made for adding a third lane if and when the volume of traffic justifies building it. The total width of the road can consist of three lanes, plus hard shoulders on each side sufficient for vehicles to drive on to in the event of breakdown or stoppage. It is an essential feature, of course, that nothing shall be allowed to stop on the road itself and that it shall be really safe for fast travel.
I believe that some hon. Members recently paid a visit to the London—Birmingham motorway now in course of construction, and there saw what a splendid conception a modern motorway is and what a wonderful contribution it can make to both the commercial and the recreational, personal traffic of the country. These motorways really will make a tremendous contribution to our traffic system as we proceed to build them.
Our policy in this matter is to try to keep both regulations and restrictions to a minimum. We feel that we are here providing roads where drivers can proceed at the safe speed of their vehicles, according to their own judgment, and that therefore the right approach in the first place is to make the minimum of regulations and restrictions, giving the hard-pressed driving community of the country, both commercial and private, an opportunity to drive in freedom and safety. But we realise that there is a good deal to be learned. We have no experience of motorways in this country. We have, of course, the benefit of a good deal of experience abroad, and some of us have seen motorways in other countries. We know what benefit they bring, but none of us knows just how our own drivers will react to them.
My right hon. Friend and I feel, therefore, that the right approach is to use the Preston bypass as a useful experiment before we come to the far more important


London-Birmingham motorway which we expect to be opened in the autumn of next year.
The House will have noticed that the Statutory Instruments now before it are for short duration only and end in August of next year, our idea being that we shall then have had some nine months' practical experience of how traffic moves on the Preston bypass. With that experience, on top of the collective wisdom in the Department, which is embodied in these Instruments, we believe that we shall be in a position to make regulations for the future that will then cover the London-Birmingham motorway and others that are to come. I am sure that the House will see that in these regulations we have left ourselves full scope to learn by experience, and if experience teaches us that modifications should be made, my right hon. Friend will be the first to learn by it.
The Order deals with the classes of vehicles which are to be excluded from the motorway, and the thought behind it is to exclude from the motorway classes of vehicles which, by their nature, are unlikely to be able to conform to the average speed of the general flow of traffic on the motorway. We believe that if these slower vehicles were allowed on the motorway, they would inevitably interfere with the general flow of traffic, and therefore cause a danger. It is for these reasons that we have excluded such vehicles as the ordinary pedal cycle and the small moped of under 50 c.c., because they would not travel fast enough to be able to join in the general flow of traffic.
The other classes of vehicles present no serious issue or problem until we come to the difficult problem of the abnormal indivisible load. We are all familiar with these horrifying vehicles travelling on the roads, and there is probably none of us who has not sat for hours behind one of them hoping to get a chance to pass, and none of us who would not be very glad indeed to see them travelling on some different road to that on which we are travelling ourselves. My right hon. Friend and I have given long and careful consideration to what was the right regulation to make for these motorways.
What we had to have in mind was that here we are building roads which will allow fast, safe travel, so that drivers

can proceed along them in the confidence that they will not encounter other vehicles, except those travelling at similar speeds and in the same direction, will not have to meet intersections, sharp corners, sharp rises and so on. One has to use one's imagination about the effect of abnormal indivisible loads travelling along such a road—one of these vast loads perhaps occupying a whole lane, or as much as a lane and a half, which some could occupy, the largest traveling at a very low speed—only four or five miles an hour—which might constitute a really serious danger to the general flow of traffic.
Therefore, the eventual conclusion of my right hon. Friend and myself was that we should start by excluding these loads from the motorway. I say "start" because, as I said earlier, it is the wish of my right hon. Friend and myself that we should learn by experience on the Preston bypass, because my right hon. Friend has power, under the 1949 Act, to use his discretion to allow loads to proceed on the motorways despite this prohibition. Our intention is that we shall permit abnormal indivisible loads to proceed experimentally on the motorway and see how they get on, so that we shall learn by experience whether, in fact, they do cause serious impediment and danger to traffic, as we apprehend they may, or whether traffic sorts itself out better than we anticipate.

Mr. Sparks: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is relating his remarks to a situation in which there is a carriageway which provides for only two lanes of traffic? If, in fact, three lanes were provided, does he think that that would overcome his objection?

Mr. Nugent: It obviously does make a considerable difference. On this particular motorway, there are two lanes of traffic, and, obviously, all the objections to the large abnormal indivisible load moving along it are intensified where there are only two lanes, as opposed to three. On the other hand, were there three lanes, these objections might be less, but we have felt that the right approach to this problem is to start with a general prohibition and to use this opportunity to experiment by allowing certain loads to use the Preston bypass, by observing them closely and seeing how they get on.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, would he say what is the procedure for abrogating these Instruments now laid on the Table of the House? He talks about exceptional loads going on the Preston motorway. Would he use a special movement order for that purpose, and, if so, is my right hon. Friend referring to very large vehicles, say, of 30 feet or more?

Mr. Nugent: Of course, we shall have to deal with what applications come to us. As my hon. Friend knows, when manufacturers wish to move these loads, they apply to the police. Where they are of very large size, which come into a special category, they need special permission from my right hon. Friend, while the smaller size loads only have to be notified to the local police. I should hope that we may have experience of both, but clearly we cannot have these loads moving up specially to the Preston bypass. We shall have to make use of such experience as comes our way and allow, in special circumstances, experiments to take place on the Preston bypass.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not understand the point which the hon. Gentleman is making. I understand that extremely wide and long roads can be dealt with already under the present Regulations by the police and the Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that heavy vehicles with very large loads will be allowed on these motorways, or is he barring altogether what are called abnormal indivisible loads?

Mr. Nugent: What we are doing here is to allow the ordinary commercial load—naturally, that is the main purpose and justification of building motorways—but to prohibit all loads beyond the size of the normal commercial vehicle and coming into the category of the abnormal indivisible load. There are two categories of these vehicles, one which could be dealt with by the police themselves, and a second category which, in any event, would require the permission of my right hon. Friend. Our intention is, as far as we have applications during the next nine to twelve months, to allow some of these to go on the Preston bypass under observation, as an experiment and to see how they get on.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the demarcation line between the normal commercial load and the abnormal indivisible load? I think there is some confusion as to the actual tonnage involved, or the length and width of the vehicle. If he could enlighten the House in this regard it would be very helpful.

Mr. Nugent: I will make myself better informed. My recollection is that for most vehicles the dimensions are 8 ft. in width as the standard width. [An HON. MEMBER: "8 ft. 6 ins."] In certain circumstances, the overhang is taken into consideration. I will make myself better informed as to the exact dimensions which cover the ordinary commercial load and at what stage they come into the abnormal indivisible load category and require special treatment.
In the meantime, to complete what I was saying, we feel that it would be dangerous to allow the abnormal indivisible load to travel on this motorway, at least until we have practical experience of it. We feel that it would be dangerous to the other traffic which is moving on the road and, therefore, we prefer to do it only experimentally so that we may learn by experience.
The size of load which requires a special order with the permission of my right hon. Friend is a width exceeding 20 ft. and a weight exceeding 150 tons. These are the loads of which we are particularly apprehensive, because, usually, they travel very slowly and, obviously, could be a serious danger. During the course of my speech, I will give the House details of the other demarcation line between normal and special loads.
Turning to the question of speed limits, once again we gave careful thought to whether there should be a general speed limit on vehicles. We concluded that it would be wise to start without a speed limit. These roads are built for safe, fast travel and the right plan seems to us to be to allow drivers to use their own judgment as to the safe speed for their vehicles and to let traffic move smoothly and rapidly along the road.
The only vehicle on which we thought there should be a specific speed limit is the vehicle which is towing either a two-wheel trailer or a close-coupled four-wheel trailer. We thought it advisable


to make this regulation, because normally this class of trailer tends to sway about when reaching a higher speed, and usually its braking system is only on the overrun principle and it does not have the hydraulic brakes of the four-wheel commercial vehicle. Therefore, these trailers are not too safe at high speed. Other than that, we thought that the right plan was to start without speed limits in the hope and belief that the average driver is careful and responsible and that drivers generally will respond to the freedom that we propose to give.
Once again, however, we shall have to learn by experience and I hope that our faith in the good sense of drivers will be justified. Obviously, if people use these roads as race tracks, they will make them a danger, not only to themselves, but to everybody else. It is right to put on record that we are doing this with our eyes open but feeling that here is an opportunity for people to travel faster in safety. We hope and believe that they will have the good sense to do this in a responsible way. I feel sure that all the motoring organisations will use their best influence to get over to the motoring public their responsibilities in travelling on this road.
In that context, I should like to refer to another aspect which is not covered in the Regulations. Obviously, there are many other matters which could be covered in Regulations, but we felt that the right approach was to keep them to a minimum and to cover the remainder of the driving behaviour on these roads by a supplement to the Highway Code defining the mode of conduct which drivers should follow when using motor ways. That would cover such matters as maximum safe speed and, what is very important, lane discipline.
One of the weak spots in the driving conduct of our countrymen is that they are not good at lane discipline. It is of vital importance that they should observe lane discipline and should observe the good conduct of driving in such matters as overtaking. All these matters we propose to cover in a supplement to the Highway Code. We propose to deal with this in the first instance by publishing what may be described as a schedule of advice, which we shall have ready in the next month or so, covering all these paints. We then propose, again,

to learn by experience on the road and at a suitable time during the experimental period we will codify this advice. Then, we must bring it before Parliament before it can become a supplement to the Highway Code itself.

Mr. Percy Collick: The hon. Gentleman said that it is the Minister's intention to issue a supplement to the Highway Code in which the maximum speed on these roads will be incorporated. If that be the case, one of the arguments which will be advanced will concern speed. Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not think that he should have laid the supplement before the House at the same time as we are considering these Regulations? It is the most important issue of the whole lot.

Mr. Nugent: No. I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. I was intending to say that this advice, as it will be in the first place, and, later, a supplement to the Highway Code, will give general advice on speed and that drivers should have regard to the nature, weight, and so on, of their vehicles, but that it will not attempt to lay down what should be the maximum speed. Our whole approach is that we should not have a speed limit and that we should leave it to the individual judgment of drivers to decide the safe maximum speed at which they can drive. We hope that that will prove to be right.
My right hon. Friend and I make this experiment conscious that it contains an element of danger. We shall watch it extremely closely. We are doing it because we believe that having no speed limit will give vehicles the opportunity to find their own speed limit and that drivers will do it in safety and in a responsible manner. If, on the other hand, we are wrong and experience proves that drivers do not do this, we shall have no alternative but to consider imposing a maximum speed limit. In the first place, however, we feel that we should try to proceed without it.
I am now better able to answer the question I was asked earlier about the dimensions of a normal load and the point at which it becomes an abnormal indivisible load. The normal maximum width is 8 ft. with an allowance for overhang of, I believe, 9 in. on either side, or 18 in. altogether. The maximum


normal weight is different for each class of vehicle, varying from 3 tons for a private car up to a considerable weight. The load varies according to the class of vehicle. The significant dimension is the 9 ft. 6 in. width including the overhang. When a vehicle exceeds that width with its load, it gets into the class of the abnormal indivisible load. There is then the intermediate stage at which application to the police will be necessary and, after that, application to my right hon. Friend. In the first place, however, for experimental purposes, we shall allow no indivisible loads whatever on the motorway except by permission of my right hon. Friend.
To conclude my remarks about the supplement to the Highway Code, this document will be comprehensive in dealing with all aspects of driving conduct which we think are necessary. It will, I hope, have not only the support of this House, but the active support of the motoring organisations, so that drivers generally will give it close attention. Incidentally, the existing Highway Code, which is an admirable document—if everybody did what it said, the roads would be very different—is today paid too little attention. I hope that we shall be able to take the opportunity of the supplement to give a new boost and authority to the existing Highway Code.
I think I have said enough to indicate to the House our general approach to this matter. We feel that we should keep Regulations to a minimum and that we should use this first experience with the Preston bypass as an experimental period during which we can learn whether our first thoughts are right. If they are not, we can modify them before we come to the far more important London to Birmingham motorway. If at the end of that time we find it necessary to make modifications, we shall certainly make them. In the meantime, we propose that there shall be no speed limit, that we should not allow the abnormal indivisible load and that we should proceed in the light of the general advice that our forerunner of the supplement to the Highway Code will give. We believe that that is the best basis for starting this very important development. I hope that the House will feel that the Statutory Instruments are soundly based and that it will give its

support to what is a very important road development.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I think that we are quickly approaching the time when we shall make history with regard to the roads. We are all looking forward to the opening of the Preston motor road and to it being followed by the opening of the major motor roads which are now in course of construction.
In debating these Statutory Instruments it is important that we should consider whether there has been adequate time for consultation and discussion with the parties who are usually consulted upon matters such as these. It is common knowledge that it is the practice of all Ministries to take the fullest advantage of consultation with the various industries and trade unions affected so that the Minister may be apprised of their viewpoint and will be able not only to enter into further discussion with them upon the points that they raise, but so that he can get a better balanced picture of the views of both sides of industry.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I thought that a number of hon. Members might have views on this matter and would raise specific points. If there is time and if it is the will of the House, I propose to answer them at the end of the debate.

Mr. McLeavy: I should like to deal with the time-table of discussion with the industries and trade unions which are concerned with the conditions laid down in these Statutory Instruments. So far as my information goes, my own trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union—I assume that other sections of industry were advised at the same time—received a letter from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on 7th July intimating that he intended to lay these two Statutory Instruments before the House. The Minister requested a reply not later than 21st July. I understand that the union sent a reply on 18th July setting out its considered opinion upon the provisions contained in the two Statutory Instruments. We were rather surprised that four days later, on 22nd July, the Minister found himself able to lay the Statutory Instruments. I submit to the Minister and to the House that


it was hardly possible to give adequate consideration to the points raised by the trade union and by industry in such a short period.
I know that the Minister is anxious to get these Statutory Instruments through because of the opening of the Preston bypass before reassembling after the summer Recess. But I cannot understand why communications could not have been sent by the Minister long before 7th July to get the views of the trade unions and other organisations upon the Statutory Instrument in order to allow for opportunities of representation and discussion with the Minister. He still would have had time to lay the Statutory Instruments before the House tonight.
I believe that it is vitally important that the utmost consultation should be held with the trade union movement and with the employers' side of industry, and that the Minister and Parliament should err upon the side of allowing too long rather than too short a time for these discussions. We in the Transport and General Workers Union feel that it was hardly possible for the Minister to consider the points raised by our union in reply to his letter of 7th July. Certainly there was not time for further correspondence between the Minister and the union on the points raised. We think it is unfortunate because of the special circumstances of these two Statutory Instruments.
I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that these are temporary provisions. Be that as it may, they are provisions which may well set the type of conditions and regulations which may be applied to the whole of our motorways in the years to come. We should have started with moderation rather than give the motoring industry absolute freedom, and say, "All of you be good boys or we might have to do something". It would have been far better if the Minister had taken the view with regard to this experimental eight-mile motor road that he could give some slight relaxation of the existing speed limit in order to try to experiment. But the Minister has thrown wisdom to the winds; he is simply banking upon the motorist playing his part and not exceeding what would be regarded as a reckless speed.
I want, first, to deal with the question of the class of traffic which will use the Preston bypass. The view of the Transport

and General Workers Union upon the matter is that, since a number of vehicles carrying abnormal and indivisible loads are already under the control of the appropriate authority in the matter of loading, it is unreasonable to exclude them from the use of the bypass. I agree with that point of view. I see the Minister smiling, but this is a serious point. The conception of these motor roads is that they shall allow motor transport to proceed more speedily than it can on the existing winding roads of our countryside.
It is intended that the large amount of money that we are spending upon the construction of these motorways—and I supported the policy right through—should be of assistance not merely to the private motorist but to the industrial life of the nation. It is intended that these motorways should assist manufacturers to deliver their goods from one point to another at a cheaper rate per mile than is possible with the congested conditions of our roads today. From that point of view it is important that we should examine the question of these very large, uncomfortable and bulky loads.
I know that if we have them on this experimental motor road they will be a nuisance to some of the other traffic which wants to move more speedily, but does the Minister seriously suggest that after we have constructed a link system of motorways throughout the country we can legitimately prohibit for all time the use of these motorways by this type of transport? From the point of view of public safety it is far better that it should go where it can move easily along these new motorways than that it should have to go winding round the streets, lanes and highways of Britain, going miles out of its course in order to avoid low bridges, costing a tremendous amount of money and labour, and involving expenditure in the police force by way of the provision of motor-cyclists and policemen to guide it along hundreds of miles of roadway. It seems fantastic that we should think of excluding such traffic from the motorways, and I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter. It is not fair or equitable to the industries concerned, and it certainly is not making the best use of our motor roads.
I turn now to the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958. The Minister seems to be


making an extraordinary decision here. In opening the debate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us his views about the freedom that we were giving to the private motorist by these Regulations. He talked about motorists travelling at a safe speed, according to their own judgment. What nonsense that is. He knows quite well that to talk in terms of a speed limit according to one's own judgment is merely asking for trouble. The judgment will depend upon, the type of individual driving the vehicle, and it may well be that we shall have serious accidents on the Preston bypass as a result of these Regulations.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, however, say, "If that happens, this is an experimental period and we can bring in Regulations relating to speed." That seems to be approaching the question from an entirely wrong angle. It would have been infinitely better if we had started moderately by allowing a slightly extra speed above the existing legal limit and said, "We will review the position in the light of this experiment and, if necessary, bring forward other Regulations based upon our experience on this road," rather than introduce proposals of this character, without any knowledge of what might transpire on these sections of road.
There are other points to which I am sure the Minister has not given adequate consideration. There is the question of the capacity of certain types of vehicles to go at unlimited speeds; the question of braking capacity, and the general type of vehicle and its loading. All these factors must be taken into consideration if we are properly to examine the position.
It is all very well for people who are used to driving an ordinary motor car to talk about heavy transport vehicles being able to travel at any speed they like without any danger to the general travelling public or to themselves. No one today is satisfied that the braking facilities of transport vehicles are adequate or that they are capable of meeting the strain of unlimited speed. If some transport vehicles happened to be following a stream of private cars going at 50, 60, 70—shall we rejoice, and say 100 miles an hour?—along the Preston bypass and something went wrong in front,

are we satisfied that the drivers of those vehicles, which might be carrying heavy loads of steel or something of that kind, would have sufficient braking power to prevent a collision with the vehicles in front and avoid causing great injury and even loss of life?
I do not think that the Minister has given adequate thought to these matters or that he has troubled to have the consultations he ought to have had with people who could advise him. I am referring not only to the manufacturers, but to the men who drive these vehicles. Their opinion is very important. They are regarded as the best drivers in the country. Through their trade union representatives they make representations to the Minister. We are entitled to an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman has had adequate consultations with the trade unions concerned. My information is that his consultations have been confined to a letter addressed to the unions. So far as I know, there has been no attempt to obtain the views of the men who drive the vehicles so that the Minister can form an intelligent appreciation of the points which arise over this question of abolishing the speed limit.
I say, frankly, that to start an experiment by having no speed limit at all is asking for trouble and setting about the whole matter in the wrong way. Even at this late hour, I wish to plead with the Minister to be realistic. I ask him to withdraw these Regulations and to have further consultation with all sides of industry and any section of the community capable of advising him. If we are to have temporary Regulations, as appears to be necessary, lot them be based on a policy hammered out after the closest and most intensive consultation with everyone concerned.
I have always supported the building of these motorways. It will be a tremendous thing for Britain when we have a network of motorways throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is equally important, although these Regulations are of a temporary nature, that we start moderately and right and are in a position to increase the facilities and the speed rather than that we should start at a point at which it may be necessary to scale down. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to the


views expressed tonight. The unions feel strongly that there has been inadequate consultation on this vital matter. The welfare of our drivers may be at stake because of the abolition of the speed limit. We feel it to be wrong and unfair to the men concerned and unfair to the general public that provision has not been made on a more sensible and equitable basis.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I shall not start by answering in detail the most extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). He spoke to us as though no one had ever seen a motorway before or had any experience of it. I will allude to some of the points he made during the course of my speech.
I wish to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on being in a position to make these Statutory Instruments at all. Great Britain started very late in the construction of motorways. After the war, when other countries in Western Europe were building new motorways or extending existing ones, we confined ourselves to passing the Special Roads Act of 1949 and making a few plans. That is all that happened for a considerable number of years. But in recent months great progress has been made and considerable stretches of special roads have been completed, or are nearing completion.
As was mentioned by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, a number of hon. Members recently had an opportunity of seeing a considerable portion of the London—Birmingham motorway under construction. A number of hon. Members have also seen the motorways under construction in Western European countries. With other hon. Members, I have seen roads under construction in Western Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, and West Berlin. Hon. Members who have seen those roads, and our own roads, will agree that the British motorways are of a very high standard. I have no hesitation in saying that our motorways, when they are completed, will be the best in Western Europe. I cannot compare them with those in America because I have not seen the American roads, but I expect that our roads would compare very favourably with those in America.
A special road is of no use unless there are special restrictions on its use, and all the officials in the countries of Western Europe which I have mentioned are agreed on one thing as it applies to conditions in Western Europe, including this country. Since the main towns are comparatively close together, much closer together than on the American continent, the main use of a motorway is to maintain a steady flow of traffic at a fast pace which is also an even pace, and it is particularly important that the flow should be steady rather than any particular pace. The Dutch officials went so far as to produce a table showing not only the saving in time achieved by having motorways, but also the saving in maintenance costs per vehicle by not having to apply the brakes or change gear at frequent intervals. That answers some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, East.
In this connection it is obvious that if we have on the motorway a large vehicle which will obstruct the passage of overtaking vehicles the advantages of not applying brakes or changing gear will not appertain. Thus, apart from the question of danger, it militates against the advantages of the road to have indivisible loads blocking up the roadway and causing vehicles to brake in order to pass round them.

Mr. Sparks: Does not that apply in the reverse direction? If we take those vehicles off the existing highway we reduce the amount of braking by vehicles on the road, but what we gain on the swings we lose on the roundabouts.

Mr. Wilson: Not at all. These roads cost £¼ million per mile and it is a waste of money to build them if we are to fill them up with traffic carrying large indivisible loads which will cause other vehicles to brake. Further, the hon. Member for Bradford, East seemed to think that the existence of these vehicles on motorways would not be unduly dangerous, but experience in Western Europe is that accidents on motorways nearly always occur when several lines of traffic are diverted into one.
Some hon. Members may recollect actually seeing a very bad accident in Holland where, for the purpose of repairing a highway, the authorities had diverted two main lines into one, with the


result that seven cars collided with each other. Having large indivisible loads on the motorway and causing a line of traffic to pass out of its line is likely to cause an accident which might be a multiple accident of a very serious character.

Mr. McLeavy: Was not the accident very largely due to the fact that there was no speed limit?

Mr. Wilson: No, no. The reason was that the road had been converted from a double two-lane road into a single two-lane roadway.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I saw the accident and my impression was that it was caused because two roads taking traffic in opposite directions had been thrown into one.

Mr. Wilson: That was true, but the same principle applies where two lines in the same direction are thrown into one. It means increased danger.
I do not think anybody has raised objections to the limitation of the use of motor cycles on the motorways. It would be very undesirable to have mopeds and very light motor cycles of that kind on the motorway. It is right to expect that a good number of vehicles will have to be excluded if full use is to be made of the motorways.
With regard to the two-wheeled trailers, my impression is that those vehicles are very often caravans pulled by rather small private cars which are not very suitable types for towing that type of vehicle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Minister has been rather generous in permitting a speed of 40 m.p.h. to these vehicles. It seems to be ample. I would again say to the hon. Member for Bradford, East, that on European motorways very large vehicles pull trailers of equal weight and travel at 60 m.p.h. and more. Recently, the Germans have proposed to put on a speed-limit, not for reasons of safety, but because these very heavy vehicles are knocking the autobahnen to pieces as they pass along them. I think the speed limit is 55 m.p.h. for a large vehicle with a large trailer.
Dutch or German experience is nothing which we could take as conclusive. Conditions in any country are bound to be different from others, especially when we remember that the German officials

themselves are the first to admit that the British standard of driving is higher than the German standard. Nevertheless, we should pay some attention to Continental experience, especially Western European, where conditions are much more likely to be similar to our own than they would be in America.
I suggest to British industry that it is much more important to them to have heavy goods vehicles and the private cars of business executives passing freely at a fast pace from place to place than that motorways should be obstructed by the occasional use of heavy indivisible loads, thereby very much reducing the usefulness and safety of the motorways.
In the long run, I am sure industry would benefit by keeping heavy indivisible loads off the motorways. I am certain that industry and the trade unions would benefit by allowing an unrestricted speed on the motorways. We have seen that in many countries unrestricted speed can be undertaken by drivers without undue strain and that it gives them a greater degree of productivity, thereby providing an opportunity for greater earnings. It is to the general benefit of industry to have a speeding up of passenger and goods traffic on our roads. I hope these experimental Regulations will be a great success, as I am sure the motorways will be.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Oswald: I rise to add my protest against the undue haste of the Minister in laying these Statutory Instruments. I do not want to risk being asked to refrain from repetition and in consequence I shall not go over the data which has been given by previous speakers. The short period allowed is inadequate for the interested parties to examine the proposals.
Under the Order which we are discussing certain classes of traffic are to be prohibited from using the new eight-mile stretch on the Preston bypass. In fact, abnormal and indivisible loads are not to be permitted to traverse that highway. The Minister already has power under the new Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) Orders to direct and divert such vehicles to prevent undue traffic congestion because certain parts of existing highways are incapable of taking


those abnormal loads. It is common knowledge that additional powers are wielded by various local authorities and the police in certain regions. They are entitled to route, or reroute, abnormal loads and not to permit them along certain stretches of roads where bridges may not be of sufficient strength to bear those loads. They can direct them into other channels.
The purpose of new, better and wider roads is to procure an even flow of traffic and to prevent congestion on existing roads. For years I have stressed in this House and in Scottish Grand Committee the necessity of a nation-wide roads programme. I have always based my argument and submissions on the outmoded and outdated road system we have in this country. It is important to note that the smooth transportation of raw materials and finished products to and from our docks and factories is of the utmost importance to the economy of the country. Added overhead costs already mentioned, because of delay in keeping road vehicles on the move, continually mount against industry.
Abnormal loads are regularly transported along the highways. It must be in the knowledge of the Minister that such things as ships' engines, ships' boilers, electrical transformers, oil refinery plant, building material and other huge loads cannot be taken by rail. Such plant requires to be manœuvred, and that is very important. At the moment it requires to be manœuvred through very narrow streets, round roundabouts and across bridges whilst all other vehicular traffic is either stopped, slowed up, or diverted. The passage of such loads causes obstruction all the way from the loading point to the unloading point. Tremendous inconvenience is caused to other road users, including the public using passenger vehicles to go about their normal business.
The British Road Federation is on record protesting against the proposal of the Minister. Every hon. Member has had a memorandum from the Federation this week including a letter sent by the Federation to the Minister. In it the Federation points out that such heavy loads are almost entirely industrial loads and that the cost of transporting such loads could be cut if they were partly, if not wholly, routed on motorways. I

recognise that the Minister has power to authorise that. Praise has already been given to the engineers responsible for the planning and laying down of this new motorway because it has been designed with gradients, sight lines and camber far in advance of anything in the way of roads at present in this country.
I agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that we are very many years behind other countries in our road programme and I welcome the introduction of new motorways. This experimental roadway is only a dual carriageway. I recognise the difficulties and problems, but it seems fantastic that we should impose these Regulations on a dual carriageway. We must recognise that we want even wider roads, with three lanes on either side, if we are really to get speedy transportation of merchandise. Abnormal loads are not often carried. It is not as though they were carried with the same continuity as a bus service from Westminster to Kings Cross; there is not a ten-minute service.
It is rare that we have really abnormal loads, but the Minister is not debarring the transportation of military vehicles. The huge tanks of the present day are being transported as indivisible loads. Huge guns can be transported. The Royal Air Force has what are commonly called "Queen Mary wagons", and will be permitted to use those vehicles without restriction. It is against the restriction on those indivisible and abnormal loads belonging entirely to industry that we are really protesting.
As an experienced bus driver, commercial lorry driver, van driver, tramcar driver and private motorist, I think that I can claim to know something about the roads and those who use them, and I can say that even if one of these abnormal loads were proceeding on the new motorway at a slow speed, the traffic would be overtaking the driver and not coming towards him. The motorist, therefore, would have every opportunity of seeing the width of the load, the flags it bears to warn oncoming traffic that it is an abnormal load, and he would take the necessary precautions when passing him.
If the new road system is to mean anything at all, the Minister should remember that the existing bottlenecks cause traffic obstruction, and take immediate steps to eliminate those portions of the route


where vehicles and loads of exceptional dimensions cause difficulties. It is on that note that I leave the Special Roads Order. I ask the Minister to reconsider it, to lift the ban on certain types of vehicle, to allow them to use the new motorways, and so create an even flow of traffic on all roads.
On the speed-limit Regulations I will speak only briefly, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to participate in this debate. These Regulations abolish the speed limit on the motorway; but for certain types of vehicle increase the speed limit from 20 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h.—double. The plea of all road users is that they wish to make up time lost in traffic delays. The motorist, whether he be road commercial, road passenger, in the distributive trades, in private business or driving for pleasure hopes to get an average speed over a given distance.
The traffic police are continually charging motorists with contravention of the Traffic Acts, and speeding is by far the most predominant charge. The main reason for breaking the law is the driver's desire to catch up on time lost by traffic congestion, and delays caused at railway crossings, open canal bridges, traffic signals and police-controlled traffic points.
The Minister and his predecessors have regularly inaugurated campaigns asking motorists and pedestrians to have more care on the roads, and there can be no doubt that, in many cases, the plea has been fully justified. The statutory speed limit is observed generally by road users, although everyone knows that many drivers exceed the limit, and are, in fact, a menace not only to themselves but to every other person in their vicinity. It could be argued, of course, that if we have a maximum speed limit it is always being exceeded, but that, in my view, is no excuse for the abolition of the speed limit. One might as well argue that because some men drink to excess, one should abolish all the licensing laws and let everyone else drink to excess.
I should like to stress that when we take off a maximum speed limit we give the opportunity to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who so desires to run his vehicle at its utmost speed, irrespective of the vehicle's capabilities. One thing that we must consider is that most motor vehicles manufactured in Great Britain purely for domestic use, as against those manufactured

especially for export, are built to specification and are not, to my mind, capable of braking within a reasonable distance when they exceed the specification speeds.
I should like to ask the Minister—and in view of the short space of time he gave to the interested authorities to consider his Regulations, I very much doubt whether he can answer in the affirmative—whether the motor trade, as such, was in any way consulted about the abolition of the speed limit. It should be remembered that it will take some time for the motor manufacturers to re-tool their establishments so as to equip the vehicles with sufficient braking power to enable them to pull up in reasonably short distances when travelling at excessive speeds—

Mr. G. Wilson: What does the hon. Gentleman suppose happens to British vehicles when they go abroad, and travel on the motorways in Europe—where there is no speed limit?

Mr. Oswald: If, as he claims, the hon. Gentleman has seen many of the Continental ways, he will know that many British vehicles are left far behind on the autobahnen in Germany, and in Holland and Belgium. When we are exporting vehicles, we build to a specification for the country to which they are being exported, and they are very different from the specification for our domestic vehicles used purely for commercial purposes. I want to stress that the vehicles that will use the motorways are built to British specification, and will be incapable of pulling up quickly, particularly if the road is slippery, oily or wet. Only those who have driven heavy commercial vehicles with a terrific load behind them can recognise and appreciate the problem of attempting to pull up a vehicle, even in the case of some article falling from the vehicle in front where the following driver has either to brake or swerve his vehicle to clear the obstacle.
There is another point which I wish to stress. It has already been mentioned, but I want to consider it still further. One of the gravest dangers to the men operating in the vast transport industry in this country is that of braking, especially if they are carrying what might be called "loosely tied" goods on their vehicles. I am thinking of vehicles carrying tramway rails and steel rails for


railways and workshops, especially on an articulated vehicle when the driver, through no fault of his own, has to brake suddenly. It must be remembered that these rails can be propelled right through the back of the cabin and can decapitate the driver, almost before he is aware that something has gone wrong in front.
I would emphasise that in many instances when a man is driving a vehicle pulling a trailer behind it he has not the same control over the trailer as he has over the vehicle. If, by abolishing the speed limit, we are to permit every driver to drive on a motorway as and how he pleases, then, instead of being in the position of getting speedy transport of people and their goods, we are likely to get more hold-ups because of the number of accidents.
Accidents which I have seen on the Continent have been caused because every one is travelling at speed and it is almost impossible for the driver of a vehicle following to pull up in the event of anything going wrong. The bursting of a tyre of a vehicle in front may cause any amount of trouble to the drivers of following vehicles.
Let us remember that the roads in Great Britain are not yet at a stage when we can have safe long-distance travelling. The Minister has been a little premature in trying to base these Regulations on an experimental stretch of eight miles on the Preston bypass. I recognise that the Minister has good intentions for the future, but I ask him to think again and at least to put some limit on the speed of certain of the vehicles which will use this motorway, having regard to the fact that many of the men employed in the industry have to run to schedule.
We are still negotiating between the trade unions and employers associations on the 30 m.p.h. running schedule. Both sides of the industry are protesting in no uncertain terms. They will say to the Minister that he is asking them, in the throes of these negotiations, to try to go into deeper water in trying to find schedule running times for the operators. Men are entitled to be rested, but if there is this additional speed-up, a man will have to cover as much as double mileage inside his normal driving period. I ask the Minister to review the situation, and I ask for further consideration of

the views of those employed in the industry both on the industrial and the administrative side.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I think I can reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) that every manufacturer of a vehicle or motor car today makes the braking specifications and the braking capacity of that vehicle up to the limit of the speed of which the vehicle is capable. We need have no doubts about that.
I think we can congratulate the Minister on bringing forward these Statutory Instruments and on certain aspects of them, in particular for taking the small and vulnerable moped and autocycle off the motorway, and secondly, for having the courage to introduce these Regulations with no speed limit for vehicles generally. It seems to me that we must leave it to the responsibility of the driver to go at a proper speed according to the traffic conditions. It may be that in the middle of the day when the motorway is crowded with traffic the proper maximum speed would be about 50 m.p.h., but at 6 o'clock in the morning when the motorway is empty and the weather is fine it may be perfectly safe to travel at 100 m.p.h. in a sports car.
We shall, I am sure, all consider with interest the driving code which my right hon. Friend will produce in due course, and no doubt we shall have some suggestions to make on it. The suggestion that springs to my mind at the moment is that in future driving codes we must induce drivers to pay more attention to their mirrors and to look behind them rather than just depend on giving signals. We might even go so far as to say that on a motorway if a driver switches from one lane to another and an accident is caused, it is the fault of the driver who switches lanes rather than of the driver who runs into him. Anyway, that is a point to be considered.
I was shocked at the proposal that the heavy indivisible load should be banned from motorways. I understand that there are three classes of these loads. There is the load that is over 9 feet 6 inches wide but up to 75 tons, in respect of which the vehicle operator has to give two days' notice to the police. There is the load that is over 75 tons, in which


case the operator must give six days' notice to the highway authority. Then there is the very heavy and large load of 150 tons or more and 20 feet wide which can only be moved by a special movement order of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I was trying to clear up this point earlier, and perhaps the Minister will confirm this point. I think that that is the type of vehicle that he had in mind when he said that he might allow some vehicles experimentally on the Preston motorway—

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I can help by saying that there is no intention of banning abnormal indivisible loads at all for the purpose of experiment on this motorway. When we want to control the kind of load, it is necessary to make a prohibition order. There is no long-term ban.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I take it that the special movement order which the Minister makes would overrule this Regulation.
I have been putting the case for motorways for over twenty years, and one of the arguments that I have used freely—and I think others probably have as well—is that the advantage of the motorway is that it will take this heavy traffic away from the little villages, towns and narrow roads. Nearly every week in this House and in another place objection is taken to these heavy abnormal indivisible loads. The suggestion made is that they ought to go by sea or by train.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: It is all very well saying "Hear, hear", but they cannot go by sea because they generally originate in a place like Rugby which is about 70 miles from the sea, and they cannot go by train because they are too big for the tunnels. Therefore, they have to go by road, and it seems to me that the logical place for this heavy traffic is the motorway.
If I had been speaking at Preston, as I might well have done if the Minister had asked me, in favour of a Preston bypass, I would have used this sort of argument. I would have said to the good people of Preston, "Your town is on the

A.6, a trunk road, and in the six miles through Preston this A.6 road has no less than 1,898 crossings, one level crossing, four sets of traffic lights and several bottlenecks only 21 feet wide. It is intersected by the east-west route from Blackpool, with all that heavy traffic. It has a bad accident record. Now you, the people of Preston, are to have a beautiful motorway which will take this heavy through traffic away from the centre of the town". I think that that would have been applauded.
I do not wish to discuss the special movement orders which the Minister makes in respect of the very heavy and very wide traffic, 150 tons and 20 ft. wide, but I wish to refer to what I call the normal indivisible load. I understand that there are 20,000 such movements throughout the year. Further, I understand that 90 per cent. of these indivisible loads are up to 12 ft. wide, and about 1,000 of them go through Preston each year. So that poor old Preston has about three such indivisible loads going through the town each day. But, as I say, the great majority are only up to about 12 ft. wide—not very wide.
Is it practicable for these 12 ft. loads to go on the motorways? I believe that it is. Each lane of the carriageway is 12 ft. wide. In addition, there is 1 ft. of contrasted coloured material at the side of the road. Each dual carriageway, in each direction, is a 26 ft. road. We have 52 ft. of carriageway altogether. It surely must be safe for a 12 ft. vehicle, which normally goes fairly slowly and keeps to its own side, to use one of the carriageways on such a four-carriageway road. If necessary, let it have a police guide to take it through.
The argument has been used—I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used it—that there is the possibility of danger being caused by the relative speeds of the indivisible loads and other traffic, that people would be motoring very fast and might run into these heavy loads. But that already applies on the ordinary roads. If I motor down the A.5, I might quite easily be going at 70 or even 80 miles an hour and come upon one of these indivisible loads. I do not consider that the risk on the motorway will really be any greater than it is on the ordinary road. In fact, I think that it will be less hazardous to have this traffic


on the motorway because the sight lines are better and one would be able to see farther ahead and take avoiding action in good time.
This kind of traffic, of course, is very important. We are dealing not only with ships' boilers, and so on, but with reactors for the atomic energy programme, heat exchangers and the like. In Holland, a country comparable with our own, these indivisible loads are allowed an the motorways although they are two-carriageway motorways.
Approaching the matter from the point of view of the public and the people of Preston, I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and bring in an amendment to his Regulations in November when the motorway is opened. There is time to have second thoughts about it. I am satisfied that we could safely allow loads up to 12 ft. wide to go on the motorway, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that. It is a matter of great importance to our trade and industry, and it is a matter of considerable importance also to the ordinary public who live in towns like Preston and villages where motorways will pass. They ought to have the benefit of having all this heavy through traffic taken away from the places where they live.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Nobody in the House would wish to do anything or say anything which would discourage the development of motorways in this country. I am sure that we all hope that not only will the Preston motorway be finished quickly, but that all the others will be finished quickly in order that motoring will be mare comfortable and that industry and the country may benefit economically. Having said that, however, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has gone out of his way to be awkward with the interests which are involved, very largely economically, in this project.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) what certain powerful economic interests feel, and I have read the document which they have issued about barring indivisible loads. There have been others. It is equally true that the men—and there will be thousands on the roads every

day and night driving the heavy lorries at, apparently, very much increased speeds—have been treated with contempt. It is no use writing to the official representatives of the lorry drivers on 7th July and asking for a reply by the 21st, and then issuing the Regulations on the 22nd. That is not consultation; that is treating the very important interests of the men, upon whose physical strength and work a good deal of the industry of this country depends, with contempt, for which, I am afraid, the Minister of Transport is becoming rather notorious.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Surely, what the Minister did was absolutely proper? We are introducing something which is only for a trial period, and is, as my hon. Friend indicated, a first example. Very rightly and properly, although not obliged to do so, my right hon. Friend asked all the interests concerned for their views with regard to this preliminary shot.

Mr. Gibson: It may be for a trial period, but the trial period will last for a year. It is just nonsense, if the trial period is to last a year, to expect that either side of the interests involved, the manufacturers and the dealers or the unions representing the men who drive the vehicles, could possibly consider the Regulations and produce reasoned arguments about them within fourteen days.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Well, we did.

Mr. Gibson: All I can say to that is that they could not have had much consideration.
What we are complaining about is that the Minister did not give the trade union mainly concerned with this industry a full and proper opportunity of considering these Regulations and their effect on the men who drive the lorries, on their health and on their hours and conditions of work. He did that at a time when he knew that they were still engaged in negotiations with the employers in the industry about raising the limit to thirty miles an hour. It seems to me that that is asking for trouble, and is certainly not fair to the men, who give their lives to the service of industry as some of them unfortunately do in reality, and without whose work the transport industry cannot get along. Unfortunately, in this country we have had long experience of


the difficulties which have existed between both sides of the road transport industry, and I am afraid that this method of dealing with new Regulations is not going to help.
I plead with the Minister to have another look at the matter. We cannot boldly double the speed limit for certain vehicles, as the Regulations do, and have unlimited speed for the vast majority of vehicles, without the men who have to do the work being entitled to an adequate say in the matter. We feel that there has not been adequate time to give real consideration to these proposals, that they have been rushed through, and that the Minister could have done this earlier, it he had liked to do so. He must have known that this new motorway would be ready for use by the end of the summer, and he must have known that many weeks ago. The discussions could have started then, and, quite frankly, do not know why they did not, I do not understand it.
I think there is a legitimate cause for complaint about the action of the Minister of Transport in rushing this matter in the way he has done without giving all the interests concerned, and I am mainly concerned about the trade unions, a real opportunity of considering his proposals, putting forward their considered points of view, and being ready and willing to argue with him about them. There has been no time for that. All I can say is that if the Minister pushes this proposal through tonight, he will create more trouble, discontent and suspicion against himself in the minds of the men and women in the transport industry—and he has already done that very badly.

9.20 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I must apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the debate. I have, however, been here long enough to realise that a large part of the debate has concerned the question of the so-called indivisible loads, or the juggernauts, as I prefer to call them. In this context, I am in full support of my hon. Friend.
We should not show too much sympathy with these enormous loads which are taken about the roads. I am never

entirely convinced that it is necessary to construct them in the places where they are made. I am sure that a replacement for the "Queen Mary" could be economically built in Croydon, but I do not think that we need have any sympathy with the subsequent difficulties that the manufacturers would experience in getting the vessel to the sea.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be firm in this matter and bear in mind that some of us at least feel that in certain cases these enormous loads are transmitted partly with a view to a form of free advertisement. There is no lack of notice about manufacturers and what they do as these loads move slowly along the roads.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: May I give my hon. and gallant Friend the benefit of my experience? The reason why these things are made in the factories is that it is much cheaper to make them there than to take them in bits and pieces and assemble them at the ports.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: None the less, I feel that if the Government are firm, it will be found possible in most cases to divide these indivisible loads.
To my mind, the three things that matter about the Order are the question whether there should be an upper speed limit for these roads, the fate of bicycles, and the fate of mopeds. Concerning the speed limit, I still favour a realistic absolute upper speed limit on these new roads where otherwise the only limit to the speed at which one can drive would be the technical capacity of the vehicle. I suggested to my right hon. Friend privately some time ago that action should be taken to impose an upper speed limit of 100 m.p.h., which at that time would have been recognised as reasonable by even the most speed-minded person who uses the roads. I appreciate the reasons for the reluctance of my right hon. Friend to accept that suggestion, and I thank him for the courtesy with which he replied to my arguments. Be that as it may, it is now too late. Only last month I saw the dream motor-cycle being constructed designed to cruise at a speed of 105 m.p.h. I must say that if I could afford it, I should very much like to buy it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would my hon. and gallant Friend be willing to be one of the


traffic cops who would have to do 120 m.p.h. to catch those who exceeded the speed limit?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My hon. Friend is not displaying his usual imagination. When a new road is constructed, there would be no technical difficulty in building into it automatic speed recording devices.
As I have said, the time for the 100 m.p.h. speed limit has passed. By the time that the great new motor road is opened—not the Preston bypass, but the first of the long roads, which, I understand, is due to come into operation at the end of 1959—I have not the slightest doubt that there will be cars on the market advertised to cruise at 150 m.p.h. and, what is more, that there will he fools who will go that speed. I am afraid that the principle of an upper speed limit will not be accepted now until an appalling succession of accidents have shocked public opinion.
I now turn to what to my mind is the more important question about bicycles. I do not argue for bicycles having to share these roads, which would undoubtedly be extremely dangerous for them. I am speaking individually, and I know that the view that I am about to express is not shared by the organised bicycling clubs. They do not share it because their great fear has always been that cycle tracks will be established on all roads and they will be compelled to use them, as is the case on the Continent. I do not entirely agree with their point of view, but I feel that whenever a new motor road is constructed separate cycle tracks should be constructed alongside for compulsory use. I view with concern the precedent of excluding cyclists from these roads altogether. I understand that we are to have garages and restaurants, and so on, under a somewhat grand name at intervals along these roads. Why should the people who work in these places be forbidden to proceed to their place of work by bicycle? That is one point that occurs to me.
Lastly, I should like to deal with mopeds. I view their exclusion from these new roads with mixed feelings. In a way I think that there is some injustice in banning them from the roads, although here again this problem could easily be met in future by having tracks for the exclusive use of both bicycles and

mopeds. On the other hand, it seems to me—and this I regard as a slight ray of light in this Order—that the Government have now accepted the principle that mopeds should be classed as bicycles. A great many of us have pressed for this to be done for some time, as is done on the Continent. My right hon. Friend's own road safety committee went some way towards favouring the classification of mopeds with bicycles in regard to the age for riding them, and so forth. This has now been done on motor roads. Surely it is wrong to treat mopeds as bicycles on motor roads and to treat them as motor vehicles on the remaining roads. That would be very unjust and would be bitterly resented as time went on. Therefore, I very much hope that the Order laid before the House can be regarded as the first step to reclassify mopeds as ordinary bicycles.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett). I speak as one of his constituents, and I can pay tribute to the fact that his prowess as a cyclist and motor scooter rider is well known in Croydon. I was particularly interested in his criticism of private enterprise for its anti-social tendencies in putting industries in the wrong places.
I shall speak, like my hon. Friends, in a critical vein, but against the background that we are enthusiastic about the motorway projects. We think that they have come too late. We want them to be expedited, and we speak with enthusiasm about the building of these new roads. Also, we are not against experiment in laying down regulations for traffic. Obviously, when a new type of road is constructed for the first time, this is the moment to make constructive experiments. We do not wish to be accused of any conservative tendencies, whether the word is spelt with a small "c" or a capital "c". Although this is an experiment—and it has been said several times that the Instruments will run for only 12 months—we must consider that it is intended as a blueprint for the future, unless there are any serious snags in it. At least, that is the spirit in which it will be accepted by people who are interested in this matter. What is being


laid down here is probably the pattern for future developments.
It is, therefore, a great pity that the Minister should have started off on the wrong foot by issuing these Instruments without having proper consultations with the people concerned. I should have thought that it was a first principle of administration in this field that he would have had full consultation with the unions whose members work on the roads; the manufacturers' associations, concerned commercially with using the roads, and bodies such as the Automobile Association representing the motorists.
Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the very short time given to the Transport and General Workers Union to make its comments. I submit that it was absurd to give it only fourteen days in which to do so. Even worse is the fact that after it had made its answer, on 10th July, it found that the Instruments were laid before Parliament four days later. This obviously led the union to conclude that the Minister was only pretending to consult it, and that in fact everything had been settled before its views could even be considered. It is not only the union which feels this way. Hon. Members will have received a circular letter from the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Association, in which the secretary says:
I am asked to express regret that the Minister before issuing such draft Regulations which affect the movement of heavy indivisible loads has not advised the heavy electrical and allied plant industry which is directly affected by such Regulations of his proposals.
Apparently it had had no warning of what was involved in the Instruments.
Turning to the point of view of the unions, I would say that two serious results arise from the failure to consult them. The first is that the men themselves are deprived of the right to be heard. We are talking about men whose livelihood depends upon the roads, who spend their working lives on the roads, and whose welfare and safety are affected by matters of this kind. They have a right to see that their representatives are fully and properly consulted before such Instruments as these are put into force. The second result is that the Minister, and therefore the country, are deprived of advice from the people who are best able to give it—the people with

practical day-to-day experience of conditions on the road. That is maladministration, and I feel that the Minister has much to answer for on this point.
I want to make one or two brief comments upon the Instruments. First, as to the classes of traffic, the important criticism levelled at the Minister is that he already has power to regulate the movements of these indivisible loads. This was explained very well to the House by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in great detail. It seems to me that this gives the police a chance to discriminate between one load and another. Surely it is not right that the Minister or this House should lay down a general rule about indivisible loads. Surely the correct thing is for the people who want to move a load to notify the police, and for the police then to take into account the weight and width of the load, between which two places the load is to travel, and the alternative routes available. In many cases it may be better to keep loads off the motorway, but in other cases it may be better to put them on it.
I was impressed by the example given by the hon. Member for Twickenham of the situation in Preston. He mentioned the fact that there were nearly 2,000 intersections on the existing road through Preston, as compared with the new motorway which will be practically uninterrupted. Surely the purpose of the new motorway, and those which are to follow it, is not only to provide a fast flow of traffic but also to relieve congestion on other roads. Therefore, in deciding whether a particularly heavy load should go on one road or another, the conditions on both roads must be weighed up.
That should be done from a speed point of view; from an economic point of view—that is, how much would it cost the people to move it, remembering the costs of moving these loads affects prices and sometimes the prices of exports—and above all, from a social point of view, which is the most important. I should have thought that more than anything else this is a matter on which the people working in the industry should have given advice.
I do not wish to be dogmatic about the exact figure which should be put on speed limits for the new roads, or what classes of vehicles should be involved.


But the Regulations on this point already lay down certain classes of vehicles—very limited classes, trailers and so on—for which there will be a speed limit. I should have thought the right thing would be to extend that to heavy commercial vehicles, in general, and perhaps to make a number of classes. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that in these days when manufacturers build vehicles and work out the braking capacity and things of that kind, they do not have regard to a speed limit. They work to the speed limit of which the vehicle is capable. Surely that is not true of many vehicles still on the roads which were built some years ago. I am advised that in many cases they were constructed with a statutory speed limit in mind. Such questions as the maximum load or braking capacity were worked out with a speed limit in mind.
I was impressed by the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who spoke about the danger of vehicles loaded with steel girders or some similar loads. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a trade union official concerned with handling claims for damages brought forward by people injured in the course of their work. Less than two years ago I was concerned with a claim by the widow of a man killed in the kind of circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend. The driver had to brake suddenly and the load of steel girders went through the cab of the vehicle and killed the driver. Where there are loads of that kind there must be strict control of the speed.
Some hon. Members opposite have said, "Well, if the driver is a sensible man he will not go too fast." It might be said that if the employer is reasonable he will lay down a schedule to allow for a moderate speed. That may be so, and it may work in nine cases out of ten. But surely the law in this matter must allow for the unreasonable employer and the unreasonable driver and provision must be made both to protect them and to protect other road users from their possible folly. If everyone were reasonable in these matters we should not need a speed limit at all. With the terrible toll of life caused by road accidents, and the figures are creeping up all the time, surely we have to be extra careful about

any measure liable to increase accidents. It seems to me that to put this reliance on people being reasonable and behaving sensibly is wrong. Where life is concerned the law itself has to enforce a reasonable standard.
I believe that in both these Instruments the action of the Minister is open to criticism. There are counter-arguments, these are not easy matters on which to be dogmatic, but the very fact that these are complicated matters emphasises the principal point of criticism which has been advanced in this debate; that there should be full and detailed consultations with the people who have day-to-day experience of working on the roads. Failure to make provision for that is a serious omission on the part of the Minister.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: The happy fact behind the regulations that we are discussing this evening is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said, that we are within reach of seeing the opening of the first special road in this country. I am sure all of us who have seen the Preston bypass and the London-Birmingham motorway will congratulate the Minister and his Department and all those engaged in this work on their very great achievements. I am happy to think that part of the London-Birmingham road passes through my constituency of South Bedfordshire.
I believe that the time has come when we have a contribution to make to road-building work throughout the world. We have something to show to other countries. It is perhaps worth considering that the time may be very near when we can ask road engineers from other countries to come here to see what we are doing in the building of modern special motor roads.
I have been giving considerable thought and have been listening with very careful attention to what has been said about the indivisible load. We have talked a lot about it. I have one suggestion which the Minister of Transport might be good enough to consider. I appreciate his difficulties. It is not easy on two-lane roads like the Preston bypass, if we want to get the traffic moving at a good pace, to visualise what can be done. The suggestion made by my hon.


Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was that 12 ft. or so could be absorbed by the overlap of road on the inside of the inner lane. That might be a possibility.
I want to make a suggestion. The present prohibition will extend to all vehicles with loads over 24 tons or 32 tons with trailer, irrespective of the speed at which those vehicles might travel. If the vehicles are not overlapping their lane there is no reason why vehicles coming behind should not be able to pass round and to proceed upon their way. A car on the motorway could pass one of these loads if the load did not have a width greater than one lane. A motorist should be able without difficulty to pass in those circumstances.
It is not a question of such a load interfering with traffic proceeding in the same direction. Appreciating all the difficulties, I suggest that there is still time, because the motorway will not be ready for a time yet, to ask my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion, that if indivisible loads are no wider than the lane they can easily be passed by other traffic.
I would also ask my right hon. Friend, who has considerable contact with motoring organisations, that before he issues the early advice that the Parliamentary Secretary talked about, he should consult the motoring, transport and haulage organisations, and also that my right hon. Friend asks these organisations for the benefit of their experience and knowledge, gleaned in the first twelve months before drafting the addendum to the Highway Code to which the Parliamentay Secretary also referred.
Members of those organisations will have been using this eight-mile stretch of the Preston bypass over the twelve months and will have gained considerable experience of some of the difficulties which nobody else will have had the same opportunity to gain. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take that point into consideration.
With the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and other hon. Members, I still believe that speed is the most constant factor in accidents. [Interruption.] I believe it is the most prominent factor, although I realise I may not speak for a majority opinion. I mean speed in the wrong place, in the wrong

context and on the wrong occasion. It is not the only factor, but it is the greatest common and constant factor in accidents.
I endorse what the Parliamentary Secretary said at the end of his remarks when opening this debate. Motorways are a new concept. We shall have 53 miles of new road completed by the end of 1959 from London to Birmingham, and I feel confident that there will soon follow more miles of new road right up into Yorkshire.
This is a new concept, and I feel sure motorists who drive heavy vehicles or private motor cars will be aware that in this new facility there is not only a new quality of efficiency and ease of travel, but also many more dangers which perhaps do not exist on many roads we have at present. Let us face the fact that although a road may be slow and cause annoyance to anyone travelling on it, especially if he is in a hurry, he cannot travel at more than a certain speed, but on these new motorways, with one exception of vehicle, there is to be no speed limit. There will be all sorts of dangers which have not been experienced on our roads in the last 40 or 50 years. I endorse the plea of the Parliametnary Secretary to those using the new roads to go cautiously until more experience has been gained so that these roads may provide safer, more efficient and easier travel.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am glad of the opportunity to make a few remarks. With all hon. Members, I welcome the new motorways. I am sure we all wish the Minister good speed in their construction.
The general public are always uneasy when new Regulations are made which do not impose a speed limit on roads: I do not think the solution to our traffic problems can be found in more speed or that with more speed on motorways or other highways we are likely to prevent traffic blocks. We are operating a twentieth century invention, the motor vehicle, on roads which were constructed centuries ago, mainly for horse-drawn vehicles and not for motor vehicles. While we are waiting for the construction of new motorways and bypasses there are bound to be traffic jams, especially in big cities and towns.
I do not feel that a solution is necessarily to be found in speed. I realise


that on new motorways there will be no pedestrians, but only motorists driving buses, coaches, cars or other vehicles. By keeping pedestrians off motorways we shall not do away with accidents, however. Most motorists observe the courtesies of the road and the majority are as careful as possible. They recognise that a motor car can be a killing instrument and they drive with care. The Minister must realise, however, that a small number of motorists are inclined to take risks. When we have new well-constructed, motorways it is likely that a small minority of motorists will imagine they are on racing tracks at such places as Brooklands. That will make accidents likely. On the Preston bypass motor coaches and buses will be used by people going on holiday to Blackpool, and if some motorists use that road as a racing track there may be nasty accidents.
Therefore, I hope that during the twelve months' experiment most careful attention will be paid to the problem of motorists who are inclined to go at speed with danger to others. I understand that the Americans call these roads toll roads and have a speed limit on them. They must have made a study of this problem to have imposed a speed limit. Western Germany were pioneers of motorways. They commenced without a speed limit. Now I understand a speed limit is imposed on commercial vehicles there. If Western Germany, after a long period of motor traffic on motorways, has imposed a speed limit, there must be some reason for taking that action. I ask the Minister to study this problem very carefully during the next twelve months.
Road casualties must give every hon. Member very serious concern. In January of this year, 470 people were killed, as against 414 in January, 1957. In February, 1958, 368 were killed, but only 282 in February of last year. The March figures were 429 and 357 respectively. The same increases are shown in the figures of seriously injured. In the first three months of this year there were 13,248 seriously injured as compared with 11,813 in the same quarter of last year. The figures for the slightly injured were 42,794 in the first three months of this year, as compared with 36,294 in the first three months of last year.
Each year more and more people are being killed and injured, and it is up to Parliament and the Government to pay great attention to this. The Minister is making these Statutory Instruments applicable for twelve months, but I hope that if he finds that accidents are taking place on these motorways he will amend the Regulations by imposing a speed limit, in the interests of road safety—for the protection of the travelling public, and for the motorist.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and to develop a little further his remarks on speed, speed limits and road safety on the special motorways. This is probably the most important aspect of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) took his examples from the motorways in Western Europe, but the accident records there are not the sort we would wish to have here.
The American turnpikes have had far greater success in reducing accidents, because restrictions are placed on the traffic using them. We have a report from Dr. Starks, of our own Road Research Laboratory, of an investigation of the American turnpike roads, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I quote from his report. We pay too little attention to the very valuable expert advice so frequently given to us on road safety matters by the Road Research Laboratory.
In his report, Dr. Starks tells us:
On all existing toll roads there is a maximum speed limit ranging from 55 to 70 m.p.h. for passenger cars and from 40 to 60 m.p.h. for commercial vehicles. These maximum speeds are strictly enforced.
Can we afford to discard the experience that the Americans have gained in the use of these special motorways and say that our drivers are so much more efficient and our cars so much more perfect than the American that we can do without a speed limit?
I quote now from Captain Sheaffer, who is in charge of the police on the Pennsylvania turnpike. He expresses it in this way—and perhaps they are a little less squeamish in America than we are in speaking of road accidents. He says:
… we never get calloused to the sight of broken bodies, to the screams of the injured


pinned in the wreckage, to the sickening smell of blood and death. And this is why we stop the speeding motorist; it isn't just to run up a record for arrests, for the best trooper is not the one who gives out the most tickets, but the one who gives the most help. Thus, the Pike's"—
He means, of course, the Pennsylvania Turnpike:
fatality ratio has dropped to an all-time low for this year's first quarter—2·7 per 100 million vehicle miles …".
That is a low accident figure. The national figure for America is over seven. Therefore, by means of a well-patrolled turnpike, with a speed limit, they have achieved an immense reduction in accidents.
I am convinced that the special motorways can contribute to road safety, but they will not do so automatically. In his very valuable report, Dr. Starks sums it up extremely well. He says:
Many of the hazards which exist on other roads are absent on toll roads, but the very absence of these potential dangers, coupled with the good driving qualities and long sight distances, creates other hazards. Speeds are usually higher and are often sustained for comparatively long periods of time, and monotony, fatigue, and lack of driving skill and judgment are important factors which contribute to accidents.
It will be seen that although by means of these special motorways we do away with certain accident factors, at the same time we create others. By statistics, of course, one could prove that a special motorway would reduce accidents by some 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. If we take a comparable road in this country and cut out all its intersections and, therefore, deduct all the accidents happening at them; if we cut out all the accidents to cyclists and to pedestrians, we can get a statistical reduction of about 75 per cent. of the accidents on that road and thus one might say that the motorway would be 75 per cent. safer. But there are these other hazards. On the American motorways they have found some of the greatest hazards in what they call sleep-outs, drivers getting drowsy from the monotony on the special motorways, and something like 37 per cent. of the accidents in one area, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, arose from that.
They have also found on investigation that accidents due to loss of control are very high. In an investigation carried out over a period of time it was found

that 25 per cent. of the total accidents were due to loss of control of the vehicle. In this country, only 5½ per cent. of the accidents are attributed to loss of control.
Then again, at the ends of the turnpikes on the special motorways there are particular dangers. As every hon. Member knows, when driving any great disstance one does not realise one's speed when one comes into a built-up area, and the accidents which have occurred in America around the toll booths because cars do not pull up in time have made it necessary to build special guards and dips in the roads to prevent such accidents.
I should have thought that in these Regulations we ought to provide for two things. We ought to provide for a speed limit, as experience shows on the American turnpikes. It may seem illogical to ask for that, because we have not a speed limit on the ordinary roads, but the ordinary roads have their natural restrictions and one cannot drive at any great speed on ordinary roads for any distance.
On the motorways, the only limit to the speed is the capacity of the vehicle. Hon. Members have said that a driver must be relied upon to use his judgment. Frankly, I am not prepared to accept that, having regard to the number of accidents which occur at the present time through excessive speed—speed in the wrong places at the wrong time. Surely to get what several hon. Members have said that we need on these motorways, steady speed, by which I presume they mean a uniform speed, the right way is to impose an upper speed limit and keep the traffic moving evenly, by which I do not mean at a slow speed, on those roads. I should have thought that a speed limit of 70 was about right.
On the New Jersey turnpike, there is no difference in the speed limit between private vehicles and commercial vehicles. This might be a sound idea, because we then have all the traffic moving at about the right speed, but I rather doubt whether the commercial vehicles in this country are sufficiently equipped for that at the present time. Thus, one point which, I think, ought to be included in these Regulations is a speed limit.
The second point is a check on speed at either end of the special motorways, and, if possible, a stop, as they have for the toll roads in America, for two


reasons: first, so that the driver has a chance of adjusting his mental attitude towards speed as he approaches a built-up area, and secondly, so that we may provide in these Instruments for examining the type of car which is going on to these roads.
Again may I quote the Pennsylvania turnpike, where they had a war on thin tyres because they found in one period that no fewer than 69 per cent. of the accidents had been caused through bursting tyres and skidding on thin tyres. We have nothing in these Instruments to prevent the most dilapidated vehicle going on to these roads, driven at very high speeds for long distances. I am not talking only about the eight miles of Preston bypass because I believe that these Instruments will be a precedent for future regulations. I believe that we should have some check at either end, for the adjustment of the mental attitude towards speed, and someone to check up on a vehicle and, if necessary, prevent it from going on the road in a dangerous condition. I would add to the speed limit and the check a substantial patrol of the road by the police.
Those are the two major points. There are some other points which one would have expected to find in these Statutory Instruments. Surely there should have been some prohibition on stopping. At present, as I read the Order, there is no prohibition on anybody drawing up on the actual carriageway, and if that is done it will produce most dangerous conditions. I see nothing which makes it compulsory to use the carriageways in one direction only on each side of the strip. I think the Minister needs a regulation to that effect in order to prosecute people for turning in the strip and possibly causing accidents when other vehicles are travelling at high speeds.
There is also nothing to prevent learner drivers from using these roads. A further point which is of concern to me is that there are no regulations about the conduct of persons on foot on the roads.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Surely all these matters that my hon. Friend is referring to will be covered under Section 12 of the Special Roads Act, 1949. Regulations were laid under that Act which cover the prohibition of learner drivers, parking on roads and other matters.

Mr. Page: That may be. But I understand that these Instruments are being brought in quickly before the end of this Session so that they will be in operation for the Preston motorway. Perhaps we shall have some further regulations on these topics.
A matter with which I want to deal in particular is the question of restrictions on pedestrians. I can find no regulation, other than that which creates the motorway, to prevent pedestrians from using the road. How is there to be indicated to pedestrians the area which they must not use? Let us remember that we are here dealing with children and elderly people, among others. I hope it will be made clear what area is forbidden to pedestrians, as well as what is to happen to the motorist on foot when, for example, his car breaks down. I hope there will be some clear indication on these special motorways where a man must not walk, so that he may avoid being a criminal.
We can only make these special motorways a success by carefully regulating them so that they are acceptable to the average driver and by ensuring that he will not shun them because they are just racetracks. We want them to be used fully.
These Instruments are expressed to be experimental, only for one year. I venture to prophesy that at the end of the year my right hon. Friend the Minister will be obliged to bring in some sort of speed limit and a check on speed at either end of the motorway. In the meantime, we shall have been experimenting for these twelve months with life and limb, and it is my fear that if these Instruments are accepted for twelve months, as they are now, many people will have died and will have been injured in the course of that experiment.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and I should like to start by saying that I think that my hon. Friend's prophecy may well prove to be wrong. It seems to me that it is far more likely that at the end of the twelve months there will have been, relatively speaking, far fewer accidents on the motorways than on any other of the highways in this


country. I am delighted that there is no speed limit attached. It would be quite illogical to impose a speed limit on a road specially designed for safe, fast traffic, and wholly wrong to do so, at least unless the prognostications of my hon. Friend about the danger of these roads were abundantly proved.
There are three matters I want to deal with tonight. First, I want to answer what has been alleged against the Minister in criticism of himself and his Department, namely, that there has not been proper consultation. Two hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly made that criticism. I then wish to refer to the speed of travel on these roads and to refer to one important aspect of it, namely, what is known as lane discipline. I hope that we shall ensure that those who drive fast and those who drive slowly will adhere to their proper lanes. Thirdly, I wish to refer to the transport of heavy loads and make one or two suggestions about such loads moving at night and about the width of the vehicles involved.
I really cannot agree at all with the criticism which has been made about prior consultation. I have some knowledge of these matters. The National Conference, of which I have the honour to be president at the present time, was consulted at the same date as was the Transport and General Workers Union. We, at a special meeting, thought that there was abundant time, in a fortnight, to consider the Measures proposed, particularly bearing in mind two factors. We are considering tonight Regulations governing only eight miles of the Preston bypass. At this time next year, we shall have an opportunity to consider the effect of them, and we shall then have an opportunity of dealing with what is of paramount importance, namely, the Regulations which will then come forward for governing the Birmingham motorway, which, I am sure, everybody is delighted to think will be opened in the autumn of next year.
The Minister and his Department are undertaking an experiment, for a trial period. Out of courtesy, he gave an opportunity to all the appropriate organisations to tender their tentative views. They are not final views; they are tentative views. We tendered our tentative views. In our letter—it is only a matter

of three lines—we said that we thought that the Regulations, generally speaking, were admirable. We said that as a Conference, and that is my personal view, too. Our Conference said, referring to the indivisible loads, that these
form an important part of the national and export trade and should be moved as quickly and efficiently as possible to destination.
No one will disagree with that. Further, we said that
if one tries to assess where the greater danger to the travelling public lies, it is surely true that a large indivisible load on a narrow highway is a greater public danger than the same load on the wide motorways.
That was an expression of view. It did not go on to say that, on balance, all these heavy indivisible loads—what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) called the juggernauts—should necessarily have a right of way, at all times, on these motorways.
This is the suggestion I put to my right hon. Friend. Could not the indivisible loads, in special circumstances, be permitted to travel at night on these motorways? As I understand it, he has special powers in this respect. Very often, the police authorities are notified when such loads are to travel. They are often very heavy, long, and wide and, accordingly, notification is given of a wish to move such a load, of the route upon which it will travel and the expected time that the journey will take.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: They get it free of charge, too.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, free of charge. It seems to me, and I hope that the House will agree, that there is room for such loads to travel at night, certainly on the particular bypass with which we are immediately concerned. I am not dealing with the general picture at the moment; I am considering this particular bypass, as an experiment, and only as an experiment.
Might not these loads be entitled to use the Preston bypass, with notification, only at night, as an experiment? Will the Minister consider whether, where the width does not exceed 12 ft., they might be allowed to use this road, provided that they do so only at night? Could he take some general discretion himself—and, incidentally, may I ask if he has the power, because I am not sure whether he has


or not—to permit these loads to travel in circumstances which he may lay down; that is to say, in individual cases only, in which he thinks it is proper to allow them to do so?

Mr. Watkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I gather my right hon. Friend can.

Mr. Stan Awbery: The Minister is laying down a precedent with this scheme, not only for this section of road, but for any road in future, and saying that the same principle will apply.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept it. I am sure that we shall have another debate in twelve months' time on this subject. May I invite the Minister to tell the House whether we shall have the opportunity in twelve months' time to consider this matter again? When he replies, my right hon. Friend may be able to tell us whether this is the finale or merely the prologue. Perhaps he will be good enough to deal with that in his reply, because it would certainly ease the minds of many hon. Members opposite.
I wish to conclude with some comments on the subject of speed. It seems to me that there are two considerations. On the whole, there are fast drivers and medium-pace drivers. The fast drivers will want to go on the middle lanes, and the slower drivers will want to keep to the other lanes. I do not believe in any speed limit on a road which has been designed for fast traffic. What I should like to see is that those who normally travel at 40 m.p.h. and never drive at more than 50 m.p.h., whatever opportunity arises, because they are just not capable of it, and those who are driving commercial vehicles who, for one reason or another—such as the state of the vehicle or the time permitted for a journey—do not want to travel at more than 40 m.p.h., adhere to the nearside lanes.
One of the main causes of accidents on these motorways, particularly overseas, where there has been experience, has been the heavy vehicle which has been travelling too slowly when a third vehicle comes up suddenly to find one slow vehicle overtaking another. If one slow vehicle is overtaken by another slow vehicle, then a person who is driving at 100 miles an hour is very often catapulted

into an accident. I would hope that we shall have good lane discipline on our motorways. If we can get this, and we can persuade those people who are driving at the more moderate speeds to adhere to the nearside lane, those who are travelling faster will be able to overtake with safety. Of course, within the next twelve months, we shall be able to have an analysis of the accidents that may occur on this bypass, and we shall be able to say whether my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right or whether the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is right.
I have always maintained that speed is not a main factor in accidents, from my own experience of accidents. My hon. Friend from his experience takes the contrary view. Well, we shall see.

Mr. John Barter: My hon. Friend's argument would seem to apply particularly in cases where heavy vehicles overtake on an incline. I hope he will deal with that point.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, but I want to conclude what I was saying about speed with regard to heavy vehicles on the road by emphasising that if we have lane discipline, we shall succeed, because a principal cause of accidents, whether on motorways or on our antiquated roads, is the failure to keep a proper look-out. That is the cause of over four-fifths of the accidents in this country. In almost every case that comes before the courts, we find that the judgment of the judge is always the same. It is: "In this case, I find that the defendant—or the plaintiff—failed to keep a proper lookout." That is the point; it is entirely the human element which is the cause of accidents; a lack of concentration, and the fast drivers of this country are usually concentrating when driving at high speeds. For that reason, that is not the basic cause of accidents. I hope that this motorway will prove it. If over a few years the Birmingham motorway and other motorways prove this to be wrong, there will be plenty of time to introduce the necessary regulations accordingly.
For that reason, therefore, I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister, first, to give that further opportunity next year after what I regard as good consultation now and to look particularly at the question of large loads, whether they travel by night and the question of their width and


length, so that special consideration may be given to them travelling in exceptional circumstances.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Hon. Members will agree that this has been a remarkable debate. For the last three hours, we have been discussing two Statutory Instruments of importance dealing with eight miles of special roadway. Hon. Members have expressed nearly as much interest tonight in roads as they do when there is a trip to inspect the roads which are being built on the Continent. If we have spent three hours, quite justifiably, in discussing this eight miles of road, when we have the following Order next year to discuss the 53 miles of road now being built from St. Albans to Birmingham we will be in for an all-night sitting.
The Minister has reason to be gratified about the way the debate has run. Everybody has expressed a welcome for the fact that at long last we in this House are able to discuss Orders which apply to motorways in this country. We have had a large number of Parliamentary Questions, debates and pressure groups at work over the last few years concerning the need for motorways in this country and at long last we are able to discuss one, albeit belated, short and inadequate as it is.
The Minister has a lot to answer when he replies. A number of different views have been expressed on both sides of the House and among his own supporters. Some, like the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), would allow mopeds and bicycles to use these special roads. Others would allow their use for the very large, abnormal indivisible loads. The main question, however, which the Minister tonight must answer is why there was inadequate consultation with the interested parties before he laid the Order and the Regulations. Several of my hon. Friends have protested at the fact that only two weeks were available between the receipt of the draft proposals and the time limit by which a reply had to be given. I should like the Minister to explain why he limited the time in this way and whether the facts are correct. One of my hon. Friends stated that the Minister sought consultation only on 7th July and called for replies fourteen days

later, by 21st July, and that on the following day or a day or two later the Order was laid before the House.
I cannot understand why the Minister had to limit the time in that way. Motor roads do not grow overnight. Construction of the Preston bypass began about two years ago and the Minister knew that there would be special regulations in regard to the motorways. It was crystal clear that action had to be taken. Why did the Minister leave it until two weeks before it was necessary to lay the Order, in order to get it through the House before we adjourn for the Summer Recess, before he consulted the interested parties? I cannot understand it, and I hope that he will give us an explanation.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) considered that a fortnight was sufficient. It may be enough for the small organisation which the hon. Member represents. [HON. MEMBERS: "What organisation is it?"] The hon. Member did not inform us what the organisation was and I doubt whether any Member of the House is aware of it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The National Conference of Road Transport Clearing Houses reviews the position of long-distance drivers all over the country.

Mr. Davies: It may have considered the time sufficient, but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the British Road Federation, which represents the interest of hon. Members opposite far more than those of hon. Members on this side, also made its protest to the Minister and wrote to his Department on 14th July as follows:
You will recall that the urgency of settling these regulations was the subject of correspondence between us in October, 1957, and since. In any circumstances, however, it is regrettable that road-user organisations are given only 14 days in which to submit comments upon matters which are of such great importance to them. The time limit imposed gives little opportunity for detailed consideration of the proposals.
I quote that to the Minister so that he should not be led to believe that protest has come only from trade union representatives. The short time allowed for discussion is also objected to by other organisations. It is not merely a protest on the part of the trade union which is most concerned and whose working conditions are affected by these Instruments, but also by the road users' organisations.
I think that the Minister has acted contrary to his normal procedure. Often in this House we have had reason to attack him for being dilatory. We generally suggest that the Minister of Transport is extremely slow in attending to matters. Why on this one occasion the Minister should jump forward in this way, I cannot understand.
The main point to bear in mind is that these Instruments are experimental. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stressed that, and I think that the House must not overlook it. It seemed to me that many hon. Members accepted too readily the fact that these Instruments would set a precedent which would be followed with regard to other motorways. For our part, we do not wish that to happen. We consider that the nine months that this road will be open should be looked upon entirely as an experimental period and that there should be full opportunity subsequently for hon. Members and outside organisations to discuss the result of the experiment and have full opportunity for putting their views before any new Orders are laid.
At the same time, it must be borne in mind that this experiment will be very limited, and the conditions on the eight miles of this bypass will not necessarily be comparable to the conditions which will prevail upon the London-Yorkshire motorway. After all, this Preston bypass has only two lanes in each of the dual carriageways, whereas the new motorway which is being built will have three lanes, and that makes a considerable difference, as hon. Members know, certainly in considering whether abnormal indivisible loads should be permitted on the motorway; and it has relevance to the speed limit.
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, the case for the motorways is based upon the need for a speedy flow of traffic to help industry and consequently to reduce the cost of transport, which is a very important factor with regard to the export market. Any restrictions which militate against the fulfilment of the objectives of the motorway must be fully justified, either on economic or safety grounds. That is the test which should be applied to these Instruments, one of which restricts the type of vehicle using the roads—prohibiting mopeds and bicycles on the one hand and the large, abnormal indivisible loads on the other

—and the other which removes the speed limit and so facilitates the flow of traffic.
The arguments concerning whether the abnormal indivisible load should travel upon these motorways are evenly balanced. It is very difficult to decide whether or not the Minister is right in this respect. It may be that there will be an advantage in having this experiment. In one aspect of the matter I am confused. The Minister's brief intervention did not clarify the position; it made confusion worse confounded. As far as I understood it, he implied that the reason for imposing the ban was so that he could permit a certain number of loads to go upon the road for experimental purposes.

Mr. Watkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: The Minister agrees, but is not it a fact that under the Special Roads Act, the 1930 Road Traffic Act, and the subsequent Regulations, the police and the highway authority—and the Minister is the highway authority in the case of these roads—already have full power to direct upon which roads these abnormal loads shall travel? In his speech the Joint Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that. If that is so, and it is intended that some of these abnormal loads shall travel on the motorways, why did the Order have to be introduced? Is not the existing machinery adequate for the purpose? The Minister, in consultation with the police and other responsible authorities, can decide which route abnormal loads shall use. He has that power already. It was not necessary to bring about a total prohibition, which has caused this difference of opinion in the House.
As for the Regulations, which deal with the speed limit, the arguments deployed tonight have been evenly balanced. The House seems equally divided whether they will aid the flow of traffic without impeding safety, or whether they will add to the dangers of the road. We are not concerned with private cars—and one would have thought from some speeches that there was already a speed limit on private cars. The removal of the restrictions on this road applies only to commercial goods vehicles and public service vehicles—buses and coaches. That is very important. I am not minimising that fact, but it should be kept in its proper perspective.
The yardstick is whether the removal of the speed limit is justified on economic grounds, to facilitate a steady flow of traffic, and whether it can also be justified on grounds of safety. Can it be shown that it will not increase the danger on the roads? It is also incumbent upon those who urge a speed limit to show that it is enforceable. Nothing could be worse than that the traffic laws should be unenforceable, and thus come into disrepute, with the motorist ignoring the rules and regulations. The ideal would be for each vehicle to travel at a speed which was safe for it. In other words, it would be better if it could be left to the drivers to decide what was the safe speed at which to travel. Unfortunately, the behaviour of drivers up to now has proved otherwise, and I believe that the question whether a speed limit should or should not be introduced is bound to be decided upon the behaviour of the motorists using the motorways.
Experience has shown, unfortunately, that a normally quite sensible person can become almost insane when he gets his hands on a steering wheel, that even the most patient of people, whether they be anglers or even bird watchers, become impatient of delay and intolerant of obstruction and demons for speed when they substitute a driver's seat for the river bank or the forest hide-out. I wonder what these motorists who like high speeds will do with the few minutes per hour which they gain.
As far as the lorry driver is concerned—and he is the person who will be most affected by the removal of the speed restriction—he is the least susceptible to this temptation. He is the best driver on the roads. Tribute has frequently been paid in the House to the very high standard of driving of the lorry drivers. I will not say that the lorry driver never exceeds the speed limit, but I believe that he is able to judge for himself not only whether the policeman is behind him—he can see that in his mirror—but also whether he can maintain a proper standard of safety when travelling at a higher speed.
It must be remembered that the present speed restriction imposed upon the lorry driver is due to the inadequacy of the roads upon which he travels. On our present roads, with their numerous intersections, bends and gradients, it just is not safe for him to travel at more than

30 m.p.h. except in the open stretches of country.
We must also keep in mind the nature of these motorways. There are no intersections, there is good vision the whole way, the curves are of such a nature that the vision remains good, the gradients are slight and there is generally a high standard of construction. All these things increase the safety of vehicles travelling at high speed.
It may well be that it will be safe for lorries and buses to travel at high speeds on these motorways, especially in view of the fact that the drivers responsible have such high standards to maintain. I would suggest, however, that if it is deemed necessary to impose a speed limit it should be higher than 30 m.p.h., or, to put it the other way round, that we should consider whether it is necessary or desirable to jump in one go from 30 m.p.h. to no restriction at all.
I think the case could well be made for fixing a maximum speed of 40 or 50 m.p.h. for commercial vehicles, but whether they should be completely and immediately released from any restriction at all is, I believe, open to question.
When the speed limit was raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h. for heavy vehicles, we on this side of the House opposed that change, not on principle but because agreement had not been reached between the employers and the unions as to the new schedules which it would be necessary to operate if full advantage was to be taken of the higher limit. We have been proved absolutely right in the decision we took that night. We decided to oppose it on those grounds; and agreement has not yet been reached between the road hauliers, the employers and the unions, and the vehicles are still operating on a 20 m.p.h. speed limit and not 30. Equally the Minister is to blame. If he had given more time for consultation and discussion, it would have been easier for the unions and the employers to debate this question, rather than that they should suddenly have it imposed on them in this way. I think the right hon. Gentleman has treated them disgracefully in that respect.
It is the responsibility of the operators to agree with the drivers of these vehicles on sound and realistic schedules. If the speed limit is removed, the drivers must be protected against the greater dangers which may arise from its removal. There


have been different views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is necessary again to stress that hon. Members on this side of the House insist on regarding this as entirely an experimental matter. I hope the Minister will repeat the assurance given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that before he makes any further regulations there will be full opportunity for hon. Members to express their opinions so that experience can be fully discussed and lessons learned from it. We need an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not again present us with a fait accompli as he has on this occasion.
Well reasoned and sincere speeches have been made by my hon. Friends, and a good case made out against several aspects of these Instruments, and, in particular, about the failure of the Minister to consult the unions concerned. A good case could be made out for dividing the House as a protest. However, in view of the differing opinions which have been expressed, which I hope the Minister will take into account, and the experimental nature of these Instruments, we do not propose to divide the House; but it must not be taken that we accept these Regulations and this Order as a precedent, or that the party on this side of the House is committed to the policy set out in them. We are, for instance, not committing ourselves to a policy of never having speed limits on the motorways.
The only gratifying feature of these Instruments is that they are necessary because the motorway is to come into use before the next Session of Parliament. In its length and breadth it is pitifully inadequate to meet the needs of the country. But it represents a beginning and is welcomed as an example of the shape of roads to come.

10.45 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I quite accept the views which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has put forward, but I think I can give one or two assurances which should help the House.
First, I shall deal with the question of consultation. My Ministry, with its many experienced experts, has had contacts and discussions on this matter literally for years. Over the past twelve months I have been trying to make up my mind.

I have had talks with many people. I have been to Germany, the United States and to France in the past two years to see what they are doing there. The more I have gone into this, and the more advice I have had from my experts—and no one is better versed in all this—the more sure I have become that one cannot make sensible, final regulations on this matter until we have had some experience in this country of using a motor road.
Our habits here are not the same as those of the Americans and Germans when driving cars. We would be quite wrong and would run the risk of doing something stupid if we went ahead and made permanent regulations. That is the answer on consultation, which has been shown by the amount of contrary advice I have received tonight. There has been no common view on either side of the House and there is no politics in this. Everyone has his own views, based on guesswork and not on experience. I do not complain about that; it is inevitable at the moment.
That is why I was advised by my Ministry, and came to my own conclusion, that we would be wrong to launch out on permanent legislation until we had some experience. I know that eight miles of twin track road is not a great deal from which to gain experience, but it will at least provide a pilot scheme. The first thing I want to make plain to the House is that because I feel consultation, although we have had a great deal, could not bring us to any sort of final conclusion, the right thing to do was to limit these Statutory Instruments so that they must run out before the next section of motor road comes into operation. That is what I have done. I have limited them to end in August next year, just before the London to Birmingham motorway will probably be ready for use. They are subject to affirmative Resolutions, which means that the whole matter has to be debated again in this House.
These Instruments do not set a precedent, but merely enable us, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East fairly said, to carryout a necessary experiment. In my view, the right time for consultation will be over the next twelve months, when we shall be gaining experience and using this section of road as a pilot scheme. We shall need consultation and help from the police, local authorities, road haulage interests, trade unions and a great many others. It will be very welcome, the


more so because then it will be based on practical experience. I certainly undertake to the House to say that we are not setting a precedent for motor roads as a whole, but enabling an experiment to be carried out on this particular road.
Why is it necessary? For this reason; there might come a time when we would want to use this road at a week-end, or perhaps for a week, for private cars only, to see what sort of flow we get under those conditions. I certainly intend to see it used by vehicles with indivisible loads. We can control their use and, if we do not want them on the road, we have power to provide that.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said that at some week-ends he might try to have only private cars using the road. By what powers can he do that?

Mr. Watkinson: I hope I shall have power to do that. Although this road is a very valuable by-pass and a useful addition to our road structure, we want to look at it as a motor road on which to base longer term plans, not only on how to use the roads but for road signs and a great many other things. I am grateful to the local authority and the police in that area of Lancashire, who have offered co-operation in this most important work. I ant to try as many combinations and permutations of traffic on this piece of road as we can in the hope that when we come to the House with more permanent regulations in six to nine months time they will be based on really wide knowledge and practical experience.
I do not at all accept the criticism that we have not carried out proper consultation. I agree that it has been of a formal nature, because the time for consultation is now coming, if this House passes these Regulations, and when we are prepared for the opening of the road this autumn. We will then welcome the maximum co-operation, of a practical nature, as the road is being used.
That, too, will go for this difficult question of the speed limit. I am sure that it would be wrong to start our experiments with some sort of arbitrary limit. It is the experience of almost everyone to whom I have talked that if we can manage without a speed limit, we can get what we must have—the maximum throughput on this road.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has said, these roads are costing more than a quarter of a million pounds a mile. They will not pay a dividend, and particularly the commercial dividend that we want, unless we can push through them, as through a pipeline, the maximum volume of traffic flowing at an economical speed. If we try to say that one sort of traffic must go at one speed and another must go at another speed we will delay the very thing that we want, which is to carry the maximum economic load.
There is the same difficulty with the indivisible load. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) rightly interpreted my present view, which is that an indivisible load that is not more than, say, 11 ft. or 12 ft. wide does not present such great difficulty, because it fits on one lane, and its length, weight and height are not such significant problems. The difficulty is with the abnormal load that closes more than one lane because on this type of two-lane road it will close over half the road, and traffic in one direction will be completely bottled up behind it. However, as I have said, I have not a closed mind on this. We must experiment, and see how we get on.
Therefore, all I ask the House to do tonight is to pass these Regulations in the sense, first, that we will welcome anyone's help to get this thing right, because it is entirely new ground and it is very important that we should get it right. Secondly, I am not asking the House to bind itself for the future, but only to enable us to carry out this experiment. It will all have to be debated again; more affirmative Resolutions will have to be laid before the House, and the House will have the opportunity to reject or to accept them. These present Resolutions must fall by September of next year—

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister says that we will have the opportunity to accept or reject them, but we say that when the experiment has taken place we should have an opportunity to express our views before an Order is laid, because, once presented, we have to accept Orders or reject them.

Mr. Watkinson: I quite see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think I have met the point made by him and by other hon. Members in saying that in the next


nine months there will be the maximum opportunity for practical consultation on the spot, which will, I hope, play a good part in shaping the Resolutions. But if the hon. Gentleman says that we would prefer some sort of general debate before the Orders are laid, I will take note of that. It is not, of course, a matter for me to decide but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If what the hon. Gentleman wants is a general debate, I will undertake to report his wish to the Leader of the House. I am anxious only that this thing should work. If it does not, it will not pay us the maximum dividend.
As to the contrary advice I have received—

Mr. Prentice: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could give a further undertaking? When fuller Regulations are provided, will they be sent to the interested parties in time to give them a period longer than a fortnight in which to make their comments?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly, but this is now a continuous progress. These are not the binding Regulations, except for the purpose of this experiment. We shall want to talk with all the interested parties involved, and ask them, "If you do not want it done in this way, how do you want it done?". For example, I want to have talks on indivisible loads, in order to see if there is a better system for getting them on the road, and, perhaps, of keeping some loads off it which would tend to lose us the economic dividend which the road should bring us.
Neither I, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, nor my Department has a closed mind on this, but open minds. We have nine to twelve months of very hard work ahead, and if it is thought right to consult the House before considering anything specific, steps will be taken accordingly.
To sum up on the quite naturally conflicting advice that I have had from both sides of the House, I will take careful note of it, but I do not think I will be bound by it, nor do I think that I should be, until we have had a chance of opening this road and using it as a pilot scheme. We are trying to prepare for this great road programme for which the country should thank the Government. We have put an immense amount of capital into it. I believe that it will pay a very good dividend, but only if we get the maximum

throughput on these new roads. If we get the wrong balance of speed or of load, so that we tend to hold up traffic rather than keep it flowing smoothly, we shall have accidents and we shall fail to get the results for which we had hoped.
I ask for the help of those who have expert knowledge and who are interested in this matter. If we can approach it in that way, these great new roads which are to come will really be a revolution in transport and really will pay the nation a very good dividend. For that reason, I ask the House to approve these Statutory Instruments.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, dated 22nd July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July be approved.

Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958, dated 22nd July, 1958 [copy laid before the House on 22nd July], approved.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD ACCIDENTS, SUTTON BYPASS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I am grateful for the opportunity which has been given to me tonight to raise a matter which is of particular importance in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, namely, the number of traffic accidents which have taken place on the Sutton bypass.
The Sutton bypass was opened in 1928 at a time when there was still an area which was not built up between the town of Sutton and the village of Cheam. At that time Sutton and Cheam had not been amalgamated into a single urban district, and it was not until six years later in 1934 that the district was made into a municipal borough. After the construction of this road, ribbon development was allowed to take place along almost the whole length of the bypass, and today the entire area which lies between Sutton and Cheam is completely built up. The Sutton bypass now bisects the Borough itself, passing right through the centre of the constituency which I represent.
In addition to the building which has


taken place on either side of the bypass, the volume of traffic has increased enormously on the bypass itself by reason of the development which has taken place in areas further to the south; and traffic coming from London has, therefore, to pass along the bypass to go into these areas in southern Surrey and Sussex.
The bypass remains exactly as it did when it was first opened in 1928, and it has not been improved in any substantial way in order to take account of modern traffic needs. It starts off as a four-lane highway, and then at a point at which there is a dangerous intersection and a hump-backed bridge it suddenly turns into a three-lane road. There is no central division between the lanes on the four-lane section, and there is a very unsatisfactory system of bollards and lamp posts which are spaced at irregular intervals, and which are held by many people to be more frequently the cause of accidents than a means of assisting in their prevention.
As this road passes through the centre of the borough there is, of course, a considerable volume of local traffic which has to pass from one side of the bypass to the other and also a considerable amount travelling along the bypass itself for short lengths. Its total length is less than three-and-a-half miles and there are no fewer than thirty-six side roads abutting directly on the main road, whilst at only three of the intersections are there traffic lights.
A very high proportion of the accidents on the bypass have involved traffic that has been coming in from one of the side roads or trying to leave the bypass and turning right in doing so. I have examined the records of accidents and it is astonishing how many accidents have been caused in this way by traffic turning right.
The number of accidents—which continues to rise—is a cause of considerable concern to my constituents. During the period June, 1955, to May, 1958—for which I have been supplied with all the details of all the accidents involving injury or death—there have been 148 such accidents in which seven people have been killed and 227 injured. A high proportion were in fact seriously injured. That number of accidents is quite staggering considering the short length of road involved.
Almost every week one reads reports in the local Press of the mounting toll of dead and injured on this section of road. A very high proportion of the victims are people living in my constituency who have to pass from one side of the road to the other in their normal daily business.
When the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was considering the introduction of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit it included part of the Sutton bypass in Part B of its recommendation in Appendix Three of its Report. In page 47 of its report, headed
Suggested modifications on other roads brought to the Committee's attention
(1) Roads for which a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is suggested for consideration
in paragraph 16, it suggested Dunstan's Hill, and the Sutton and Cheam A217 from Collingwood Road to Alberta Avenue, whose present status is unrestricted.
In the main part of its recommendations in paragraph 168 it said:
The conclusions of the Committee and of the sub-group, set out in Appendices 2 and 3, were reached only after inspection of the roads and consideration of such information as was available to it as to traffic volumes, incidence of accidents, etc., and of the suggestions made to the Committee in evidence. Deliberately, however, there had been no attempt to fix the exact details of the proposed limits until the local authorities concerned have had a chance to express their views.
On the publication of that Report the Borough Council of Sutton and Cheam expressed its views in no uncertain terms. On 24th October, 1956, it recommended in a letter to the Surrey County Council that the portion of the bypass road between Sutton Common Road and Hillside Road be included in the limit of 40 m.p.h., but unfortunately this proposal did not receive the support of the County Council. On 31st December, 1956, a letter from the Town Clerk of the Sutton and Cheam Borough Council was sent to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. After expressing disappointment at the lack of support from the Surrey County Council, the letter concluded by saying:
I am to advise you that the Council are of the opinion that a speed limit of 40 miles-per-hour should be imposed between Sutton Common Road and Hillside Road.
Since that time, the number of traffic accidents on this road has continued to rise. On 2nd May this year, a further approach was made. The Borough Council wrote direct to the Surrey County Council, and also to the Ministry with a


request that a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. should be introduced on that portion of the bypass from its commencement at the Rosehill roundabout to its junction with Hillside Road, Cheam. The Rosehill roundabout is where the bypass begins. A speed limit covering that portion of the road would take in the section from the beginning of the bypass until after the worst points for traffic crossing it are passed.
To the best of my knowledge, there the matter rests. The volume of traffic using the bypass and trying to cross from one side to the other continues to increase, and the toll of accidents continues to rise. Yet the bypass remains unrestricted, without, to any substantial degree, having been modernised or brought up to the standard which modern traffic requires. Every week, I read in the local Press reports of accidents involving death or injury to my constituents.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider very carefully what I have said tonight, and I want him to do two things. First, will he see whether it is possible for a 40 m.p.h. limit to be introduced, at the very least on the busiest section of the road to which I referred, before the toll of accidents rises still further? Secondly, will he examine carefully the whole design of this dangerous and out-of-date road and consider what can be done to bring it up to the standard required for modern traffic conditions?

11.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) on his good fortune in securing the Adjournment debate tonight to ventilate the complaint of Sutton and Cheam and the problem on the Sutton bypass. As I listened to his criticisms of this bypass and of its construction—how it was built in 1928, and is today appallingly out of date—I wished that there was no other road in the country which had been built before 1928. Bless my soul: there are many which were built in about 1828 and we are still having to do the best we can with them. The fact is that, although this road is not perfect, compared with average standards it is a very modern road indeed, and I wish that we had no worse bypass than this in or about many of our towns. Leaving that aside, I sympathise with my

hon. Friend very much in the accident record on this road. It is high, and it it a matter for concern. I sympathise with his reaction and his wish to see something done to reduce the level of accidents there. It really does not follow, however, that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit such as he requests would necessarily have this result.
I will say a word or two about speed limits generally. There is a continuous demand for new speed limits or extended speed limits all over the country—usually, of course, from people asking for 30 m.p.h. limits, but now for 40 m.p.h. speed limits also. I should not exaggerate if I said that, if we in the Ministry agreed to every request for a 30 m.p.h. limit or a 40 m.p.h. speed limit which came to us. it would not be many years before all the roads of the country were covered by either 30 m.p.h. limits or 40 m.p.h. limits and we were more or less back to the position we were in in the 'thirties when there was a general speed limit of 30 m.p.h. over the country.
The fact is that speed limits are effective only if they can be enforced; and, with the best will in the world, the police cannot enforce them—and they are certainly most conscientious in trying to enforcethem—unless the limits command the co-operation of the average motorist. If he accepts them as being reasonable, then the exceptional motorist who disobeys the law is easily picked out. I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Ministry must be most economical in the use of this very valuable road safety measure if we are not literally to debase the currency and lose the co-operation of road drivers generally.
The 40 m.p.h. limit was introduced with this very thought in mind; for, although the 30 m.p.h. limit is well observed in the middle of towns, it is not so well observed on the periphery. There has been an increasing enforcement problem over recent years, and it was then considered that it might be possible to introduce an intermediate stage between the 30 m.p.h. limit and derestriction; that is, on roads not sufficiently built up for the average motorist to co-operate with the 30 m.p.h. limit, but still not open enough for complete derestriction.
We started the experiment last March, to see if it was possible to introduce this new feature which would result in a better observance of the limit, with


general co-operation from drivers and a less difficult task for the police. But already we have had complaints that in the use of the 40 m.p.h. limit we have made fresh impositions rather than relaxations; in other words, we have imposed more 40 m.p.h. limits on previously derestricted roads than we have relaxed by going from 30 to 40 m.p.h. That is what is stated to have happened in this process. Therefore, we are in danger of defeating our own ends unless we are very careful where we impose these 40 m.p.h. limits. If we are to get any value at all out of speed limits nationally we have to be very cautious about imposing new ones.
The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee has been most helpful by making a most careful survey of the Greater London area in an effort to get value out of the experiment, and this Sutton bypass road, south from Rosehill roundabout is an open stretch of road; the first open stretch for drivers coming out of London and except for the railway bridge, south of the Cheam road, it is a four-lane road throughout. Visibility is good, and it would be very difficult to get the average motorist to give a reasonable degree of co-operation to the speed limit suggested. It is a class one road and, throughout discussions, the Surrey County Council has advised against a speed limit, no doubt for the reasons which I have mentioned.
The fact that the accident record is a high one is a matter for concern, but I would point out that of the 35 injury accidents which have occurred in the last six months on the whole three-and-a-half miles, no fewer than 14 were due to motorists turning right without exercising sufficient care. A good deal of the trouble is due to the junctions. There is, however, very little to show that speed was the primary cause of the accidents. Our observations on the road confirm this and indicate that traffic usually travels there between 40 and 50 m.p.h., not at very high speeds.
We have tried to do something to help at the main road junctions. Traffic lights have recently been modified to include an all-red phase, which will help pedestrians and turning traffic, and I hope that we shall see some benefit from that in the coming months. The installations

in the centre of the carriageway have caused trouble, and except at the road junctions they have all now been removed; these must of course be left to help pedestrians who are crossing.
I accept that the road is not perfect, judged by modern standards. There is not sufficient carriageway width for a central reserve and two two-lane carriageways. The cost of widening the road to give that would be very heavy and there is no immediate prospect of it with the huge arrears of road work which we have to carry out. We have established a new experimental island layout at the Brighton Road junction and I hope that it may be the forerunner of improved design of islands at other junctions on the road.
It is true that in the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the lengths of road which should be considered, this length was included for consideration for a 40 m.p.h. limit, but it was included only for consideration. The fact is that that Committee has twice considered it, in two different schedules, and in the event has decided not to include it in either. The fact that it did not advise us to put a 40 m.p.h. limit on this length of road, combined with the Surrey County Council's opposition to a limit, must weigh heavily in the scales against the view expressed by my hon. Friend, which, I know, Sutton and Cheam Borough Council strongly holds.
This Adjournment debate tonight is the first time that my hon. Friend has brought the matter to my attention. Although I cannot give him any immediate hope of a 40 m.p.h. limit there, I undertake, now that he has represented it to me so cogently and eloquently, to watch the situation. I undertake to have it considered again when we review the working of the 40 m.p.h. limit at the end of the experimental period, which we shall do in the next six or twelve months, and when we consider whether is should be extended elsewhere and what provision is needed in the London area. That I will certainly do and I will give full weight to my hon. Friend's representations and to the strongly-held views of the Sutton and Cheam Borough Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.